An analysis of the data from the 1981 census of Canada is presented concerning the aboriginal population aged 15 to 24, defined as including the Inuit, status Indian, non-status Indian, and Metis populations. Comparisons are made with the non-aboriginal population. Factors considered include geographic location, migration, family status, dependent children, educational status, labor force participation, unemployment, income, and industry.
This selective report notes recent events relating to pregnancy termination in the U.S., France, England, Italy, East and West Germany, Norway, Sweden, and the Netherlands. Due to the Supreme Court decision in January 1973, abortion is now legal in the U.S. Although abortions is illegal in France, an estimated 400,000-1,000,000 clandestine abortions occur each year. Although abortions are legal in Britain, the ease with which they can be obtained varies regionally. As of March 1973, contraceptives are part of Britain's National Health Service. In Italy, a bill to legalize abortion has been introduced in Parliament, though there is little likelihood of its passing. In East Germany, abortion can be granted for medical or social reasons, while in West Germany, the governmental policies are more conservative, resulting in an abundance of illegal abortions performed by physicians. There is a trend toward easier abortion laws in Norway and Sweden. Little is happening in the Netherlands as far as liberalizing the abortion laws. Rather liberal grounds for pregnancy termination exist in China (though emphasis is on contraception), India, Russia, and Eastern Europe (with the exception of Romania). Abortion is frowned upon in Africa, Latin America, and the Middle East resulting in a large number of illegal abortions. It is concluded that there is liberalized abortion in communist bloc countries, there is trend toward liberalizing abortion in a large group of western countries, and tradition and religion are responsible for conservative abortion laws in a third group of countries.
Abortion, particularly later-term abortion, and neonaticide, selective non-treatment of newborns, are feasible management strategies for fetuses or newborns diagnosed with severe abnormalities. However, policy varies considerably among developed nations. This article examines abortion and neonatal policy in four nations: Israel, the US, the UK and Denmark. In Israel, late-term abortion is permitted while non-treatment of newborns is prohibited. In the US, on the other hand, later-term abortion is severely restricted, while treatment to newborns may be withdrawn. Policy in the UK and Denmark bridges some of these gaps with liberal abortion and neonatal policy. Disparate policy within and between nations creates practical and ethical difficulties. Practice diverges from policy as many practitioners find it difficult to adhere to official policy. Ethically, it is difficult to entirely justify perinatal policy in these nations. In each nation, there are elements of ethically sound policy, while other aspects cannot be defended. Ethical policy hinges on two underlying normative issues: the question of fetal/newborn status and the morality of killing and letting die. While each issue has been the subject of extensive debate, there are firm ethical norms that should serve as the basis for coherent and consistent perinatal policy. These include 1) a grant of full moral and legal status to the newborn but only partial moral and legal status to the late-term fetus 2) a general prohibition against feticide unless to save the life of the mother or prevent the birth of a fetus facing certain death or severe pain or suffering and 3) a general endorsement of neonaticide subject to a parent's assessment of the newborn's interest broadly defined to consider physical harm as well as social, psychological and or financial harm to related third parties. Policies in each of the nations surveyed diverging from these norms should be the subject of public discourse and, where possible, legislative reform.
Last month saw the end of the first year of operation of the Abortion Act in Britian, and statistics are now available for the first 10 months, from April 1968, to February 1969. In that time, legal, notified abortions totalled 28,849, of which 20,746 were on the grounds of risk of injury to the physical or mental health of the women. A further 1350 were carried out because of risk to the life of the woman, 1137 because of risk to the physical or mental health of existing children, 965 because of the risk of the woman bearing a physically or mentally handicapped child, and 52 as emergencies to save the life of the woman or prevent grace injury to her health. Another 4599 abortions were carried out for more than 1 of these reasons. An earlier set of statistics, covering the period up to December 1968, showed that 22,256 abortions legally carried out up to then, 13,609 were in National Health Service hospitals and 8601 in other approved hospitals. It is likely that the total number of legal abortions in Britain for the first full year of the Act will be about 34,000. In the years leading up to the introduction of the Abortion Act, the number of abortions carried out in Britain for reasons then legal had been growing steadily, and had reached 7600 in National Health Service hospitals in 1967. An unknown further number of legal abortions had been done in private nursing homes - these cannot be computed because they were not notifiable before the Abortion Act came into force. There are 4 legal abortions for every 100 live births in Britain; this is about 1/2 the figure for Denmark and one tenth that of Czechoslovakia.
An overview is provided of the access to abortion legally mandated in Eastern and Western European countries; changes in legal restrictions are indicated. Only in Ireland and Poland is abortion prohibited. In most European countries women may legally terminate a pregnancy in the first 3 months. Some countries require an authorization from a medical officer before the request is accepted; countries with these provisions are England, Scotland, Wales, and former Federal Republic of Germany, Spain, Hungary, Ireland. Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, and Portugal. Most of the women in these countries are able to obtain an abortion, at least during the first 10 weeks of pregnancy. Abortion without restriction is not authorized in any European country. Countries that have removed noncompliance from the criminal code are Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Bulgaria, the Netherlands, Czechoslovakia and the Slovak Republic, and European republic of the former USSR. There is a range of different restrictions. For example, in England and Wales, abortion is permitted for a nonviable fetus regardless of any other health risk and does not restrict foreign nationals from obtaining an abortion. Abortion on demand is possible in Albania without any conditions for unmarried women and with a husband's consent for married women. Liberal laws do not always translate to liberal practices. For example, in certain regions of Australia, Spain, and the former Federal Republic of Germany, there is still opposition to abortion and obstacles are presented or information on abortion requirements is kept quiet. On the other hand, violations of the law on abortion were frequently violated and unpenalized in countries with restrictive legislation, such as the Netherlands prior to 1982, France before 1975, and Belgium prior to 1990. Restrictive laws are sometimes interpreted liberally regionally, such as Switzerland's concept of "dangerous to health." Abortion procedures tend to be simple (curettage) due to lack of equipment such as suction curette. RU-486 is available only in France, Great Britain, and Sweden. Regardless of the law, frequency of abortion varies. Romania has the highest abortion rate at 6 abortions/woman. Abortions are also widespread in Belarus, Serbia, and Russia. Data are available by country on average number of abortions and conditions for legal practice.
The various countries of Europe have similar conditions of access to contraceptive methods. In eastern Europe, however, the supply of contraceptive pills, coils, spermicidal products, and condoms is less than the demand (except for Hungary and the Czech and Slovak republics), particularly in Poland, in the former Soviet Union, and in Romania. Sweden and Turkey have authorized midwives to prescribe contraceptive pills or to insert coils. In Turkey, Bulgaria, Romania, and in the former Soviet Union, the dispensing of pills without prescription is tolerated. Spermicidal products can generally be dispensed in pharmacies without a prescription. Condoms are sold even in Ireland. France dose not allow the advertising of contraceptives in nonmedical journals, while Denmark encourages such advertising. Today a number of European countries regulate contraceptive surgery. In Finland, a minimum of 3 children is the prerequisite and age conditions are set (over 18 years in Turkey, over 25 years in Austria, Denmark, Iceland, Norway, Portugal, and Sweden, over 30 years in Finland, and over 35 years in Croatia and Slovenia). Sterilization for contraceptive purposes constitutes a statutory offense of mutilation in France, Ireland, Austria, Greece, Malta, and Poland. Sterilization is carried out in Spain and Italy, less so in Ireland and Malta, and there is slow progress in this regard in Belgium and France. Voluntary sterilization is legally allowed in Hungary and Romania, practiced on a small scale in Albania, and prohibited in Bulgaria. The Netherlands has the highest number of couples protected by sterilization. Most often the public family planning services are integrated in other services, such as community clinics, hospitals, and pre- and postnatal clinics. In Europe as compared with the developing countries, a very large number of private practitioners have the responsibility of informing and prescribing.
The study examined the relationship between migration and the incidence of emotional disorders among 568 young Third World immigrants in Norway. Participants were 10-17 years of age. Using a questionnaire, acculturative stress (i.e., change in health status as a result of acculturation) was found to exist among the children, although having to migrate or being born in Norway was not related to mental health status. A stressful acculturative experience (i.e., difficulties in initiating friendship with Norwegian peers) alone could account for only 1% of the self reported emotional disorders. Incidence of depressive tendencies, poor self image, and psychological and somatic symptoms were found to be related to close and supportive parents, marginality, integration, gender and the number of friends the child had. These accounted for between 12 and 15% of the explained variance. The paper theoretically discusses how these factors may be related to acculturative stress, and recommends them as starting points for a primary intervention program to reduce emotional disorders among these children.