医学上到底有没有办法可以鉴别是否有堕胎经历?
[复制链接] 分享:您太太之前是做特殊工作的吗?
非特殊行业从业者或者相关认识一般不太会关心这个问题
具体可以参考 6 of 4407
Novel approaches to estimating abortion incidence
Gilda Sedgh 1, Sarah C Keogh 2
Affiliations Expand
PMID: 30999917
PMCID: PMC6472065
DOI: 10.1186/s12978-019-0702-0
Abstract
Background: In countries where abortion is legally restricted or clandestine, estimates of abortion incidence are needed in order to bring attention to the reality of this practice. Innovations in methods for estimating stigmatized behaviors, coupled with changes in the conditions under which women obtain abortions, prompt us to review new approaches to estimating abortion incidence and propose innovations in this field.
Methods: We discuss five approaches for yielding accurate estimates in countries with restrictive abortion laws. These include two prevailing approaches in the field (direct questioning of women about their abortions and the Abortion Incidence Complications Method (AICM)), one that has begun to be in use in recent years (the List Experiment) and two that are newly proposed by the authors (the Confidante Approach and a modification of the AICM). We discuss assumptions, strengths and weaknesses of each approach. Finally, we suggest strategies for assessing the validity of the findings in the absence of a gold standard.
Results: Though direct questioning has consistently been shown to miss many abortions, reporting can potentially be improved by normalizing or reframing the experience of abortion. The AICM has had the advantage of not relying on women's reports about their abortions; however as self-induced abortion becomes more common, this strength becomes a weakness. The modified AICM, which uses women's abortion reports to estimate the proportion of abortions that lead to treated complications, improves our chances of capturing self-induced abortions. The List Experiment preserves the woman's anonymity (not just her confidentiality), but it can be cognitively challenging and the potential to make subgroup estimates is extremely limited. The Confidante Approach entails asking survey respondents about abortions among women ( the rest is omitted)
dispatch (dispatch) 在 ta 的帖子中提到:
首先非挖坑,真好奇。
其次,这个问题也是有意义的啊。
而且,这种就是看起来很平常且简单的问题,需要有个明确的结论性东西。不然总是网上反复讨论反复说。
如果给一个简短的答案的话,没有。详细一些解释,这个问题其实可以拆成两步:
1,人工流产会在身体上留下什么痕迹吗?
答案是有的会,有的不会。流产的方式主要分为药物流产和手术两种,药物流产后恢复的好不会有什么痕迹,手术刮宫可能会导致子宫壁变薄,内膜损伤,瘢痕子宫,宫腔或者输卵管粘连等等,但并不是所有人流产后都会发生这些。
2,普通人或者专业人士能够准确的识别这些痕迹吗?
答案是这些痕迹并没有什么特异性,有的小姑娘天生子宫壁就薄,盆腔炎症也会造成粘连,就算是看到瘢痕子宫也要确认一下是不是之前做过子宫肌瘤之类的手术。也有一些明显的特征,比如大月份引产的话子宫颈会发生改变,这样能看出来。
总结就是,人工流产不一定会留下痕迹,留下了痕迹除非特别明显也没法确定是人工流产引起的,临床上一般全靠问,回答什么就记录什么。
dispatch (dispatch) 在 ta 的帖子中提到:
这里说的鉴别是指通过一些常规医学检测手段或某些指标监控,至少以一定置信度(比如90%准确率)判定一个人是否有过堕胎行为。
签名档
人最终喜爱的是自己的欲望,而不是自己想要的东西——弗里德里希·威廉·尼采