Introduction

Association between location of prenatal care services and non-consented cesarean sections in Mexico: A secondary analysis of the National Survey on the Dynamics of Household Relationships 2016

“…Higher age, higher socioeconomic level, and more years of schooling have been positively associated with planned C-section deliveries among Mexican women [ 38 ]. As described in the literature, the healthcare system in Mexico has a high number of patients with shortages in financial resources, supplies, medications, infrastructure, personnel, especially specialists, and poor distribution of services [ 39 ]. These, along with the lack of patience among healthcare providers, the lack of expertise in the use of vacuum extraction and forceps for assisted vaginal delivery, and trying to prevent medical liability, are reasons that have been linked as potential contributors to the high numbers of cesarean sections in both the public and private sectors [ 40 ] and could also be associated with the percentage of non-consented C-sections in Mexico found in the present analysis.…”

“Obstetric Violence,” “Mistreatment,” and “Disrespect and Abuse”: Reflections on the Politics of Naming Violations During Facility-Based Childbirth

“…It is gender-based violence because “women are its main victims and it has its origins primarily in how women (and their (dis)abilities) are perceived and perceive themselves in Western patriarchal societies” (Cohen Shabot 2016). “Obstetric violence” therefore provides a name for the reproduction of gender inequalities and racial and socioeconomic discrimination as these manifest in clinical maternity care settings (Sesia 2020). In this way “obstetric violence” moves beyond a quality-of-care issue and the narrow confines of categorizing individual healthcare professionals’ behavior (Quattrocchi 2020).…”

“…“Obstetric violence” is a “struggle concept” (Chadwick 2021): a powerful epistemic resource (Sesia 2020) that does the laborious political work of making visible a hidden form of direct and structural gender-based violence and of reclaiming women's reproductive life cycles from the stronghold of the biomedical approach to reproductive health. It challenges oppressive normative conceptions of pregnancy and childbirth and relegitimizes women as a driving source of knowledge and power in childbirth (Sadler 2004; Chadwick 2021).…”

Living in opposition: How women in the United States cope in spite of mistrust of federal leadership during the pandemic of Covid‐19

“…CMA provides a framework for understanding health and illness through a critical lens that incorporates attention to political and economic structures into understandings of power, inequality, and health (Singer & Baer 1995, 2018; Panter‐Brick & Eggerman, 2018). Global theories of social structure inform the development and ongoing use of CMA (Sesia et al, 2020). The interplay between institutional processes and lived experience is a key subject of analysis, including investigations of how political and economic processes impact inequality, perceptions, and practices of the body (Sharp, 2000; Kleinman et al, 1997; Scheper‐Hughes & Lock, 1987), illness, health, and social suffering (Kleinman et al, 1997).…”