Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37213431›Full record

ArticleLanguage policy2023

Language policy at an abortion clinic: linguistic capital and agency in treatment decision-making.

Ella van Hest, July De Wilde, Sarah Van Hoof

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Language policy, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Ella van HestGhent, Belgium Department of Translation, Interpreting and Communication, Ghent University.ORCID 0000-0001-6160-0374
July De WildeGhent, Belgium Department of Translation, Interpreting and Communication, Ghent University.ORCID 0000-0002-4936-955X
Sarah Van HoofGhent, Belgium Department of Translation, Interpreting and Communication, Ghent University.ORCID 0000-0001-6678-6059

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This paper investigates an abortion clinic's procedural choices regarding the management of linguistic diversity. It focuses in particular on how language serves as capital for clients' agency in decision-making regarding their abortion treatment. Based on linguistic-ethnographic fieldwork in a Flemish abortion clinic, we analyse the clinic's institutional language policy, which states that clients should be able to speak Dutch, English or French in order to be eligible for a medical abortion-the alternative to a surgical abortion. We show how direct and smooth communication is considered a condition to ensure safety during the medical abortion treatment. We also discuss how, against the backdrop of the COVID-19 pandemic, the practical reorganisation of the clinic has led to more autonomy and empowerment for some clients, while it reinforced the already existing inequality for others. Finally, we discuss the clinic's struggles with and lack of reflection on language support services. We conclude that the case of the abortion clinic can be considered as one of exclusive inclusion, and suggest that a higher awareness of language support and a critical rethinking of the safety procedure could strengthen this clinic further in its endeavour to help women confronted with an unwanted pregnancy.

Indexed as

Abortion careAgencyExclusive inclusionLinguistic capitalMultilingualismSafety

Identifiers

PMID37213431
PMCPMC10082438

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.