Entry tags:
IWHHR - Thought Question, Week 4
Week Four (Reproductive Health)
How do the themes and issues raised in the short film, "Why Did Mrs. X Die?" correspond to the conditions in your country? Do you know anyone who has experienced or dealt with these conditions? Share your thoughts in three to five thoughtful paragraphs
***
I’ll be reflecting on the issue of access to health information and medical help raised in the short film, "Why Did Mrs. X Die?" in the context of Russian Federation (former Soviet Union), where I spent half of my life. The material of the lesson on Reproductive health helped me putting my own experience (and others with whom I shared that social environment) in the context of the global facts and processes, as well as providing examples of applying terminology of human rights to the painful experiences, which often get buried in individuals’ minds, because of lack of words and a general narrative (that which addresses the experiences of many women).
Notable changes have occurred In Russia in various social and economic areas since “the end of the Soviet Union” and “the start of authoritarian corporate state” – an unfortunate result of the reformists’ attempt of 1990th called Perestroika. Not surprisingly – sins then very little improvements occurred there in respect to women’s health rights: the women’s right to control her fertility via access to abortion, availability of contraceptive options, access to the social services in case of unwanted pregnancies, domestic violence, rape, war-related displacement, etc.
The structural barriers to healthy life of Mrs. X as a person and a mother greatly overshadow the deficits of the medical remedies for her health condition. This observation is true in the context of Russia. In late “Soviet era” the basic medical services were in general made available for free to the majority of population. Specific women’s needs were addressed via special medical units “women’s consultations”, which served pregnant women and also were dealing with the unwanted pregnancies as well. Separate medical units were devoted to venereal diseases, which served both men and women. This medical structure served well for collecting population data (supposedly for developing a broad-scale state intervention programs) but was generally insensitive to such issues as personal and family privacy (unless for additional symbolic or monetary offering), it was not fit to the purpose of promoting sexually responsible behavior. The goals of teaching general public healthy life strategies were delegated to mass media which served to normalize the gender inequality and blamed women for the failures of state’s social policies. Thus even available services were considered inhuman, and women preferred to resort to a personal net of contacts in search for medical help. Ironically the medical services were officially available and in principle accessible for every women, but the system was organized in such inhuman way, that women preferred to avoid going to the doctor by all means, sometimes till it was too late. Women’s own lack of knowledge about her sexual health and fertility control options, as well as the disrespect they had to face in the medical institutions led to.
In the medical institutions of the Soviet Russia (and little has changed in today’s Russian Federation) women were routinely treated as impersonal carriers of a precious baby, or as dirty carriers of an unwanted baby, or as irresponsible transmitters of dirty diseases. Women normally did not have a chance to develop a sense of possession of her body. She was always expected and required to make her body available to a “necessary” test or “medical” scrutiny (woman was required to submit a gynecologist’s report to various official or semi-official social instances: getting a pass for a public pull, joining a summer camp, at every new employment… needless to say – men were free from this kind of constant “testing”, and thus free from a hidden social accusation of being a carrier of something potentially wrong and disastrous).
Using the terminology offered in the film, I see that for many Russian women existing health care system was itself a barrier for having healthy lives as a sexual being, and as a person that can get pregnant. People attempted to avoid that overwhelming dehumanization practices to keep at least a portion of their lives private, not exposed to unwanted social attention. Non-medical abortions thus were widely practiced for the privacy reasons with the fatal consequences for the women’s lives. The number of abortions in USSR was enormous also because of the non-existence of sex education and lack or non-availability of female controlled contraceptives (locally produced male condoms were usually laughed at and despised).
Currently the rising fundamentalist religious ideology sponsored by the Russian authoritative corporate state regime often curbs the efforts of NGOs and local activists to make sexual education accessible and available to the public. Not too many of NGOs are left to exist, that are focusing on the groups of disadvantaged people – helping the drug addicts, homeless, displaced people (men and women), some of NGOs provide legal advice to women subjected to rape, home violence, etc. Recent legal initiatives of Duma (the parliament-imitating official law-making governing body of the Russian Federation), introduced even greater restrictions on the NGOs who were disseminating knowledge thus openly opposing the official religious discourse of fooling the population.
I think Russia’s case clearly demonstrates how the states’ structural intervention (routinely made in Russia in the interests of the elites in power) results in deteriorating conditions for the health rights of women.
***
video WHY DID MRS. X DIE?, RETOLD [14 MIN]
How do the themes and issues raised in the short film, "Why Did Mrs. X Die?" correspond to the conditions in your country? Do you know anyone who has experienced or dealt with these conditions? Share your thoughts in three to five thoughtful paragraphs
***
I’ll be reflecting on the issue of access to health information and medical help raised in the short film, "Why Did Mrs. X Die?" in the context of Russian Federation (former Soviet Union), where I spent half of my life. The material of the lesson on Reproductive health helped me putting my own experience (and others with whom I shared that social environment) in the context of the global facts and processes, as well as providing examples of applying terminology of human rights to the painful experiences, which often get buried in individuals’ minds, because of lack of words and a general narrative (that which addresses the experiences of many women).
Notable changes have occurred In Russia in various social and economic areas since “the end of the Soviet Union” and “the start of authoritarian corporate state” – an unfortunate result of the reformists’ attempt of 1990th called Perestroika. Not surprisingly – sins then very little improvements occurred there in respect to women’s health rights: the women’s right to control her fertility via access to abortion, availability of contraceptive options, access to the social services in case of unwanted pregnancies, domestic violence, rape, war-related displacement, etc.
The structural barriers to healthy life of Mrs. X as a person and a mother greatly overshadow the deficits of the medical remedies for her health condition. This observation is true in the context of Russia. In late “Soviet era” the basic medical services were in general made available for free to the majority of population. Specific women’s needs were addressed via special medical units “women’s consultations”, which served pregnant women and also were dealing with the unwanted pregnancies as well. Separate medical units were devoted to venereal diseases, which served both men and women. This medical structure served well for collecting population data (supposedly for developing a broad-scale state intervention programs) but was generally insensitive to such issues as personal and family privacy (unless for additional symbolic or monetary offering), it was not fit to the purpose of promoting sexually responsible behavior. The goals of teaching general public healthy life strategies were delegated to mass media which served to normalize the gender inequality and blamed women for the failures of state’s social policies. Thus even available services were considered inhuman, and women preferred to resort to a personal net of contacts in search for medical help. Ironically the medical services were officially available and in principle accessible for every women, but the system was organized in such inhuman way, that women preferred to avoid going to the doctor by all means, sometimes till it was too late. Women’s own lack of knowledge about her sexual health and fertility control options, as well as the disrespect they had to face in the medical institutions led to.
In the medical institutions of the Soviet Russia (and little has changed in today’s Russian Federation) women were routinely treated as impersonal carriers of a precious baby, or as dirty carriers of an unwanted baby, or as irresponsible transmitters of dirty diseases. Women normally did not have a chance to develop a sense of possession of her body. She was always expected and required to make her body available to a “necessary” test or “medical” scrutiny (woman was required to submit a gynecologist’s report to various official or semi-official social instances: getting a pass for a public pull, joining a summer camp, at every new employment… needless to say – men were free from this kind of constant “testing”, and thus free from a hidden social accusation of being a carrier of something potentially wrong and disastrous).
Using the terminology offered in the film, I see that for many Russian women existing health care system was itself a barrier for having healthy lives as a sexual being, and as a person that can get pregnant. People attempted to avoid that overwhelming dehumanization practices to keep at least a portion of their lives private, not exposed to unwanted social attention. Non-medical abortions thus were widely practiced for the privacy reasons with the fatal consequences for the women’s lives. The number of abortions in USSR was enormous also because of the non-existence of sex education and lack or non-availability of female controlled contraceptives (locally produced male condoms were usually laughed at and despised).
Currently the rising fundamentalist religious ideology sponsored by the Russian authoritative corporate state regime often curbs the efforts of NGOs and local activists to make sexual education accessible and available to the public. Not too many of NGOs are left to exist, that are focusing on the groups of disadvantaged people – helping the drug addicts, homeless, displaced people (men and women), some of NGOs provide legal advice to women subjected to rape, home violence, etc. Recent legal initiatives of Duma (the parliament-imitating official law-making governing body of the Russian Federation), introduced even greater restrictions on the NGOs who were disseminating knowledge thus openly opposing the official religious discourse of fooling the population.
I think Russia’s case clearly demonstrates how the states’ structural intervention (routinely made in Russia in the interests of the elites in power) results in deteriorating conditions for the health rights of women.
***
video WHY DID MRS. X DIE?, RETOLD [14 MIN]