Türkiye’de Kürtajın Yaygınlığı ve Kürtaj Kararını Etkileyen Faktörler

Year 2019, Volume: 39 Issue: 2, 359 - 378, 31.12.2019

Tuğba Adalı Alanur Çavlin

Abstract

Doğumla sonuçlanmayan gebelikler, sadece sebebiyet verebileceği sağlık riskleri açısından sağlık çalışanlarının değil, aynı zamanda sosyal adaletsizlik, toplumsal cinsiyet eşitsizliği ve kadınların temel insan hakları açısından önemli veriler sunabileceğinden sosyal bilimler alanındaki araştırmacıların da ilgisini çekmiştir. 2013 Türkiye Nüfus ve Sağlık Araştırması’nın sonuçları, kürtaj düzeyinde önceki araştırma sonuçlarına göre önemli bir farklılığa işaret etmektedir. Araştırmaya göre son 2008-2013 yılları arasında kürtaj oranı ise %10’dan %5’e düşmüştür. Bu çalışmada, kürtaj düzeylerindeki değişim ve kürtaj risklerini etkileyen faktörler incelenmiştir. Çalışmada temel olarak 2013 Türkiye Nüfus ve Sağlık Araştırması verileri kullanılmıştır. Analizlerde 2008-2013 yılları arasındaki kürtaj yaygınlığındaki değişim kadınların seçilmiş özellikleri bazında incelenmiştir. Ardından 2008-2013 döneminde gerçekleşen kürtajları etkileyen faktörler lojistik regresyon analizi ile modellenmiştir. Bu modellerde riski etkileyen faktörler demografik ile sosyo-ekonomik ve kültürel belirleyiciler olarak iki grupta incelenmektedir. Kürtaj yaygınlığında 2008-2013 dönemi arasında görülen düşüş istatistiksel olarak anlamlıdır. Son yıllarda siyasi söylemin etkisiyle kamu hastanelerindeki kürtaj hizmetinin kısıtlanmış olması dikkate alındığında, bu beklenen bir bulgudur. Çalışmadaki lojistik regresyon analizlerine göre, gebeliklerin kürtaj ile sonuçlanması sosyo-ekonomik özelliklerden çok demografik özellikler ile belirlenmektedir. Modern yöntem kullanmış; gebeliği yöntem başarısızlığıyla oluşmuş; veya halihazırda erkek çocuğu olan kadınların gebeliklerinin kürtajla sonlanma riski daha yüksek bulunmuştur. Ayrıca dindarlığın da kürtajın önemli bir belirleyicisi olduğu görülmüştür.

Keywords

Kürtaj, İsteyerek düşük, Türkiye, Nüfus ve Sağlık Araştırması, Demografi

The Prevelance of Induced Abortion in Turkey and the Factors Affecting Its Decision

Abstract

Pregnancy outcomes other than live births not only attract the attention of health workers due to potential health risks but also of social scientists as these outcomes can provide clues regarding social injustice, gender inequality, and women’s fundamental human rights. Compared to previous surveys, the results from the 2013 Turkey Demographic and Health Survey indicate a change in abortion levels. Accordingly, the proportion of pregnancies ending in abortion had dropped from 10% in 2008 to 5% in 2013. This study examines this change and the factors affecting abortion. The data mainly come from the 2013 Turkey Demographic and Health Survey. The changes in the prevalence of abortion between 2008 and 2013 have been investigated using selected characteristics of women. The factors affecting abortion between 2008 and 2013 have been modeled using logistic regression analyses and have been addressed in two groups, namely demographic and social-economic/cultural determinants. The decline in abortions from 2008 to 2013 is statistically significant. Considering the changes in abortions services provided in public hospitals with the impact of recent political discourses, this finding is expected. Analysis shows that the odds of having an abortion are affected by demographic factors more than socio-economic ones. Pregnancies to women who have ever used a modern contraceptive, which were due to contraceptive failure, and which took place after a son was already born are more likely to end in abortion. Moreover, religiosity is a significant determinant of abortion.

Keywords

Abortion, Induced abortion, Turkey, Demographic and Health Survey, Demography

References

• Adalı, T., Çavlin, A., & Berktaş, E. (2015). The prevalence of spontaneous and induced abortions and the factors affecting them. In 2013 Türkiye Nüfus ve Sağlık Araştırması İleri Analiz Çalışması [Further Analysis of the 2013 Turkey Demographic and Health Survey] (pp. 139–173). Ankara: Elma Teknik Basım Matbaacılık.
• Agadjanian, V. (2002). Is “abortion culture” fading in the former Soviet Union? Views about abortion and contraception in Kazakhstan. Studies in Family Planning, 33(3), 237–248. Agadjanian, V., & Qian, Z. (1997). Ethnocultural identity and induced abortion in Kazakhstan. Studies in Family Planning, 28(4), 317–329.
• Agrawal, S. (2008). Determinants of induced abortion and its consequences on women’s reproductive health: Findings from India’s National Family Health Surveys. Calverton, MD: Macro International.
• Akın, A. ve Bertan, M. (1996). Türkiye’de ana sağlığı, aile planlaması hizmetleri ve isteyerek düşükler [Maternal health, family planning services, and abortions in Turkey]. Türkiye Nüfus ve Sağlık Araştırması İleri Analiz Sonuçları [Further Analysis of Turkey Demographic and Health Survey]. Calverton, Maryland: T.R. Ministry of Health & Macro International.
• Akın, A., & Enünlü, T. (2002). Türkiye’de isteyerek düşükler [Abortions in Turkey]. In A. Akın (Ed.), Türkiye’de ana sağlığı aile planlaması hizmetleri ve isteyerek düşükler. Türkiye Nüfus ve Sağlık Araştırması 1998 İleri Analiz Sonuçları [Further Analysis of the 1998 Turkey Demographic and Health Survey]. Ankara, Turkey: TAP Vakfı & UNFPA.
• Bianet. (2015). Ankara’daki 30 kamu hastanesinden sadece üçü kürtaj yapıyor [Only 3 out of 30 hospitals in Ankara perform abortions]. Retrieved from http://bianet.org/bianet/kadin/164877ankara-daki-30-kamu-hastanesinden-sadece-ucu-kurtaj-yapiyor
• Bongaarts, J., & Westoff, C. F. (2000). The potential role of contraception in reducing abortion. Studies in Family Planning, 31(3), 193–202.
• Bose, S., & Trent, K. (2006). Socio-demographic determinants of abortion in India: A north–south comparison. Journal of Biosocial Science, 38(2), 261–282.
• Bradley, S. E. K., Croft, T., & Rutstein, S. O. (2011). The impact of contraceptive failure on unintended births and induced abortions: Estimates and strategies fo r reduction. DHS Analytical Studies No. 22. Calverton, Maryland, USA: Macro International.
• Çavlin, A., & Ergöçmen, B. (2013). Ethno-cultural analysis of abortion and contraception: The cases of Turkey and selected Asian states. Nüfusbilim Dergisi, 32–33, 45–63.
• Çavlin, A., Tezcan, S. ve Ergöçmen, B. (2014). Kadınların bakış açısından kürtaj [Abortion from the perspective of women]. Nüfusbilim Dergisi, 34, 53–69.
• Center for Reproductive Rights. (n.d.). The world’s abortion laws. Retrieved from https:// reproductiverights.org/worldabortionlaws?country=GRC
• Chae, S., Desai, S., Crowell, M., Sedgh, G., & Singh, S. (2017). Characteristics of women obtaining induced abortions in selected low- and middle-income countries. PLoS ONE, 12(3). https:// dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0172976
• Dickson, K. E., Jewkes, R. K., Brown, H., Levin, J., Rees, H., & Mavuya, L. (2003). Abortion service provision in South Africa three years after liberalization of the law. Studies in Family Planning, 34(4), 277–284.
• Elul, B. (2011). Determinants of induced abortion: An analysis of individual, household, and contextual factors in Rajasthan, India. Journal of Biosocial Science, 43(1), 1–17.
• Fehring, R. J., & Ohlendorf, J. (2007). The influence of religiosity on contraceptive use and abortion in the United States. Nursing Faculty Research and Publications, 52.
• Fetters, T., & Samandari, G. (2015). Abortion incidence in Cambodia, 2005 and 2010. Global Public Health, 10(4), 532–544.
• Fişek, N. (1967). Prof. Dr. Nusret Fişek’in kitaplaşmamış yazıları: Ana çocuk sağlığı, nüfus sorunları ve aile planlaması (Vol. 2) [Prof. Dr. Nusret Fişek’s unpublished writings: Mother child health, population problems, and family planning]. In Türkiye’de nüfus planlaması [Population planning in Turkey]. Retrieved from http://www.ttb.org.tr/n_fisek/kitap_2/28.html
• Hacettepe University Institute of Population Studies. (1987). 1983 Turkish Population and Health Survey. Ankara, Türkiye: Hacettepe University Institute of Population Studies, T.R. Ministry of Health & DHS Macro International.
• Hacettepe University Institute of Population Studies. (1989). 1988 Turkish Population and Health Survey. Ankara, Türkiye: Hacettepe University Institute of Population Studies, T.R. Ministry of Health & DHS Macro International.
• Hacettepe University Institute of Population Studies. (1994). 1993 Turkey Demographic and Health Survey. Ankara, Türkiye: Hacettepe University Institute of Population Studies, T.R. Ministry of Health & DHS Macro International.
• Hacettepe University Institute of Population Studies. (1999). 1998 Turkey Demographic and Health Survey. Ankara, Türkiye: Hacettepe University Institute of Population Studies, T.R. Ministry of Health, United Nations Population Fund & USAID.
• Hacettepe University Institute of Population Studies. (2004). 2003 Turkey Demographic and Health Survey. Ankara, Türkiye: Hacettepe University Institute of Population Studies, T.R. Presidency State Planning Organization & European Union.
• Hacettepe University Institute of Population Studies. (2009). 2008 Turkey Demographic and Health Survey. Ankara, Türkiye: Hacettepe University Institute of Population Studies, T.R. Ministry of Health, T.R. Presidency State Planning Organization & TÜBİTAK.
• Hacettepe University Institute of Population Studies. (2014). 2013 Turkey demographic and health survey. Ankara, Türkiye: Hacettepe University Institute of Population Studies, T.R. Ministry of Development & TÜBİTAK.
• Henshaw, S. K., & Kost, K. L. (2008). Trends in the characteristics of women obtaining abortions, 1974 to 2004. New York, NY: Guttmacher Institute.
• Jilozian, A., & Agadjanian, V. (2016). Is induced abortion really declining in Armenia? Studies in Family Planning, 47(2), 163–178.
• Jones, R. K., Finer, L. B., & Singh, S. (2010). Characteristics of US abortion patients, 2008. New York, NY: Guttmacher Institute.
• Jones, R. K., & Kost, K. (2007). Underreporting of induced and spontaneous abortion in the United States: An analysis of the 2002 National Survey of Family Growth. Studies in Family Planning, 38(3), 187–197.
• Lim, L., & Singh, K. (2014). Termination of pregnancy and unsafe abortion. Best Practice & Research Clinical Obstetrics & Gynecology, 28(6), 859–869.
• MacFarlane, K. A., O’Neil, M. L., Tekdemir, D., & Foster, A. M. (2017). It was as if society didn’t want a woman to get an abortion: A qualitative study in Istanbul, Turkey. Contraception, 95(2), 154–160.
• Mor Çatı Kadın Sığınağı Vakfı. (2015). Kürtaj yapıyor musunuz? “Hayır yapmıyoruz!” [Are you proving abortions? “No we are not!”]. Retrieved from https://www.morcati.org.tr/tr/anasayfa/290-kurtaj-yapiyor-musunuz-hayir-yapmiyoruz Norman, W. V. (2012). Induced abortion in Canada 1974–2005: Trends over the first generation with legal access. Contraception, 85(2), 185–191.
• Nüfus Planlaması Hakkında Kanun (1965). Retrieved from https://www.tbmm.gov.tr/tutanaklar/
• KANUNLAR_KARARLAR/kanuntbmmc048/kanuntbmmc048/kanuntbmmc04800557.pdf
• Nüfus Planlaması Hakkında Kanun (1983). Retrieved from http://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/ MevzuatMetin/1.5.2827.pdf
• O’Neil, M. L. (2017). The availability of abortion at state hospitals in Turkey: A national study. Contraception, 95(2), 148–153.
• Sedgh, G., Bearak, J., Singh, S., Bankole, A., Popinchalk, A., Ganatra, B., … Alkema, L. (2016). Articles on abortion incidence between 1990 and 2014: Global, regional, and sub-regional levels and trends. The Lancet, 388(10041), 258–267. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S01406736(16)30380-4
• Sedgh, G., Singh, S., ve Hussain, R. (2014). Intended and unintended pregnancies worldwide in 2012 and recent trends. Studies in Family Planning, 45(3), 301–314. Senlet, P., Cagatay, L., Ergin, J., & Mathis, J. (2001). Bridging the gap: Integrating family planning with abortion services in Turkey. International Family Planning Perspectives, 27(2), 90–95.
• Senlet, P., Curtis, S. L., Mathis, J., & Raggers, H. (2001). The role of changes in contraceptive use in the decline of induced abortion in Turkey. Studies in Family Planning, 32(1), 41–52.
• Singh, S., Remez, L., Sedgh, G., Kwok, L., & Onda, T. (2018). Abortion worldwide 2017: Uneven progress and unequal access. Retrieved from https://www.guttmacher.org/sites/default/files/ report_pdf/abortion-worldwide-2017.pdf
• Topgül, C., Adalı, T., Çavlin, A. ve Dayan, C. (2017). Sisteme değil isteğe bağlı hizmet: Sağlık çalışanları gözünden İstanbul’da kürtaj ve aile planlaması hizmetlerinin durumu [Not Regulatory But Arbitrary Service: The Situation of Abortion and Family Planning Services in İstanbul From the Viewpoint of Health Care Professionals]. Ankara.
• United Nations. (1995). Uluslararası Nüfus ve Kalkınma Konferansında kabul edilen eylem planı, Kahire, 5-13 Eylül 1994 [The accepted action plan at the International Population and Development Conference, Cairo, Egypt September 5-13, 1994]. Ankara, Turkey: TİSAMAT.
• Wang, C. (2014). Induced abortion patterns and determinants among married women in China: 1979 to 2010. Reproductive Health Matters, 22(43), 159–168.
• Westoff, C. F. (2005). Recent trends in abortion and contraception in 12 countries. DHS Analytical Studies No.8. Calverton, MD: ORC Macro.
• World Health Organization. (2015). Health in 2015: from millennium development goals to sustainable development goals. Switzerland: WHO Press.