Why We Should Avoid the use of the Term “Post-Abortion Syndrome”

Commentary on Boulind and Edwards (2008)

Datos Bibliográficos

ID15345926
AutoresCatriona Ida Macleod (0000-0003-0992-3525, Rhodes University, autor de correspondencia), Catriona Macleod (0009-0005-4281-9617, Rhodes University)
Año2009
Volumen19
Número3
Páginas423-427
Fecha de publicación2009-01-01
Peer ReviewedSí
Open AccessNo
TipoARTICLE
RevistaJournal of Psychology in Africa (JOURNAL)
Identificadores de la revistaISSN: 1433-0237 • E-ISSN: 1815-5626
EditorialTaylor & Francis (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1080/14330237.2009.10820311
OpenAlexW319215361
IdiomaEN
Citas recibidas3
Referencias citadas20

Boulind and Edwards (2008) present a case study of Grace, a women suffering, in their words, from post-abortion syndrome (PAS). In this commentary I argue that while Boulind and Edwards' (2008) report is useful in terms of documenting the therapeutic processes engaged in, they would have been better served in not hanging the distress experienced by Grace on the diagnostic category of post-abortion syndrome. Reasons for this are that: PAS is not a recognised category of diagnosis, despite having been initially proposed in 1981; applying a PTSD framework to abortion is questionable; PAS focuses attention on the abortion itself in isolation from the fact that abortion occurs in the context of severely problematic pregnancies and other important socio-cultural stressors; PAS, in the very manner in which it is formulated, invokes to a very complex politics of the foetus. Boulind and Edwards (2008) are careful in their documentation of the complexities of the case, and thus their use of PAS is unfortunate

Abortion · Context (archaeology · Criminology · Developmental psychology · Distress · Isolation (microbiology · Pregnancy · Psychiatry · Stressor · Term (time · Clinical Psychology · History · Maternal and Perinatal Health Interventions · Prenatal Substance Exposure Effects · Psychology · Reproductive Health and Contraception