Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41104454›Full record

ArticleSexual and reproductive health matters2025

Hegemonic medicine and self-managed abortion: reclaiming Latin American feminists' contributions to knowledge and practice development.

Sara Larrea, Suzanne Veldhuis

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Sexual and reproductive health matters, 2025. 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

2 authors.

Sara LarreaIndependent Consultant, Alicante, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-9206-8656
Suzanne VeldhuisPhD Candidate, El Colegio de la Frontera Sur, San Cristóbal de Las Casas, Mexico.ORCID 0000-0001-6253-9325

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In this commentary, we challenge the narrative that presents self-managed medication abortion (SMA) as a recent "discovery" of Western biomedicine. Drawing on our lived experience and a literature review, we compare how different key concepts - autonomy, empowerment, person-centred care, privacy, confidentiality, and demedicalisation - are understood by the feminist SMA movement in Latin America, versus hegemonic medicine. We argue that when the radical ideas of the feminist SMA movement are appropriated by mainstream health systems without proper recognition of their political foundations, they lose their original meaning and may fail to achieve the positive outcomes envisioned by activists. For instance, autonomy, privacy, and demedicalisation may result in individuals feeling unsupported, while person-centred care often means merely being treated without stigma or violence. Maintaining medical control over SMA restricts access, while neoliberal policies that promote "self-care" and the commodification of abortion pills enable states to evade responsibility with regard to abortion care. We advocate for integrating key concepts taken from SMA activism into formal health systems, while honouring their origins and political significance. This requires meaningful, horizontal collaborations between SMA activists and biomedical professionals, acknowledging that SMA activists are abortion experts and should be treated as such.

Indexed as

Abortion, InducedFeminismSelf-ManagementEmpowermentFemaleHumansLatin AmericaPoliticsPregnancyautonomybiomedicinedemedicalisationmedication abortionperson-centrednessself-managed abortion

Identifiers

PMID41104454
PMCPMC12604115

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.