Should doctors be the judges? Ambiguous policies on legal abortion in Nicaragua

Abstract

Nicaragua's Penal Code permits "therapeutic abortion" without defining the circumstances that warrant it. In the absence of a legally clear definition, therapeutic abortion is variously considered legal only to save the woman's life or also to protect the health of the woman, and in cases of fetal malformation and rape. This paper presents a study of the theory and practice of therapeutic abortion in Nicaragua within this ambiguous legal framework. Through case studies, a review of records and a confidential enquiry into maternal deaths, it shows how ambiguity in the law leads to inconsistent access to legal abortions. Providers based decisions on whether to do an abortion on women's contraceptive behaviour, length of pregnancy, compliance with medical advice, assessment of women's credibility and other criteria tangential to protecting women's health. The Nicaraguan Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology aimed to clarify the law by developing a consensus among its members on the definition and indications for therapeutic abortion. If the law designates doctors as the gatekeepers to legal abortion, safeguards are needed to ensure that their decisions are based on those indications, and are consistent and objective. In all cases, women should be the ultimate arbiters of decisions about their reproductive lives, to guarantee their human right to life and health.