Conclusions

Despite being the region in the world with the highest abortion rates, Latin America lacks sufficient information on the topic. The illegality of this practice in the vast majority of Latin American countries makes abortion extremely difficult to measure. The only indisputable fact is that the clandestine nature of abortion prevailing in the region mainly affects the poorest and most vulnerable women. It also means that they usually abort in unsuitable conditions, which tends to have adverse consequences for their health and even lives, in addition to affecting their family environment.

The illegality of abortion is also one reason that only a small proportion of cases are registered. Under these circumstances there is substantially reduced access to public health services, where the majority of abortion cases are registered and where most women that cannot afford private clinics tend to be treated. On many occasions, these women only go to public hospitals to deal with the complications of a previously induced abortion or when their state of health is delicate. Likewise, the stigmatization of abortion for religious or other reasons often means that women that interrupt a pregnancy or those that attend them fail to report cases of abortion, which in turn leads to a significant underreporting of this practice in most Latin American countries, where it continues to be taboo. Conversely, countries such as Cuba have far more liberal laws on this issue, which not only enormously facilitates access to safe, legal abortion, but also means that it can be more accurately measured. Although free access to abortion in Cuba and other countries in the region implies a fundamental difference with countries such as Chile, where this practice is prohibited, this does not necessarily imply a reduction or an increase in its incidence, since many other factors influence this complex phenomenon.

At the same time, in different parts of the world, particularly in countries where abortion is illegal, estimates have been made using very different types of methodology to measure its prevalence. These estimates, however, often have significant margins of errors, due on occasion to their lack of methodological rigor. Moreover, since they are nearly always based on specific populations, it is difficult to use them to measure abortion on a national level. Studies of women treated in hospitals for abortion complications provide closer estimates than others. However, they exclude women without access to health facilities where they can obtain abortions and those that do not go to health facilities for treatment for complications, who, as mentioned earlier, constitute an extremely large group.

In addition to this, it is important to note that the various data sources and methodologies used make it difficult to compare both the prevalence of the practice of abortion over time and to have a comparative perspective enabling one to compare the information produced in different countries. Another difficulty in comparing the various studies lies in the sparseness and inaccuracy of the information in them, which is sometimes due to the methodologies used and the sectors of the population being analyzed. Furthermore, one should point out that certain nations in the region either lack estimates related to abortion or have not published any.

Several researchers agree that for the time being, given the lack of up-to-date procedures for gathering information on abortion, the best option is to combine various methods and techniques. This will enable better estimates of its incidence and other aspects of it and therefore determination of the extent to which results obtained in different ways are comparable. However, several doubts have yet to be resolved. For example, the use of sophisticated methods, whose results tend to show a greater incidence of abortion, does not guarantee results that are more representative of reality.

Given the limitations of the research on this topic, it is important to continue undertaking broader surveys and studies in order to obtain key estimates related to abortion, such as the prevalence and implications of this practice. Sufficient and strictly scientific information is crucial for sensitizing politicians, doctors and other social actors to the social and public health issue this constitutes and for showing them the impact and the consequences of abortion, particularly in high-risk conditions. Provided we can count on more sufficient and rigorous information, we can depend on the necessary elements for undertaking appropriate actions and interventions, as well as developing effective public policies that would reduce the adverse risks associated to abortion.

Another essential task related to the theme of this chapter – one which should not be postponed – is to undertake studies with similar methodologies in different countries, particularly Latin America and the Caribbean. This would provide a common basis for enabling comparisons of the scope of abortion in the various countries and the various contexts and social groups within them. This would contribute to, among other things, the development of better studies on abortion in the local and even regional sphere that would offset the lack of reliable information on abortion in the vast majority of Latin American countries.

As we shall see in the following chapters, documentation on women that have had abortions, their reasons for seeking them and the implications of them can contribute to broader knowledge on the phenomenon and the magnitude of the related problems of interruption of unwanted pregnancies affecting countries in this region.

^ Top of page