RESUMO
In May 2006, Colombia's Constitutional Court liberalized abortion, introducing three circumstances under which the procedure would not be considered a crime: (1) rape or incest; (2) a risk to the woman's health or life; and (3) fetal malformations incompatible with life. Immediately following the court's ruling, known as Sentence C-355, members of La Mesa por la Vida y Salud de las Mujeres (hereinafter La Mesa) began to mobilize to ensure the decision's implementation, bearing in mind the limited impact that the legal framework endorsed by the court has had in other countries in the region. We argue that La Mesa's strategy is an innovative one in the field of legal mobilization insofar as it presumes that law can be shaped not just by public officials and universities but also by social actors engaged in the creation and diffusion of legal knowledge. In this regard, La Mesa has become a legal expert on abortion by accumulating knowledge about the multiple legal rules affecting the practice of abortion and about the situations in which these rules are to be applied. In addition, by becoming a legal expert, La Mesa has been able to persuade health providers that they will not risk criminal prosecution or being fired if they perform abortions. We call this effect of legal mobilization a "pedagogical effect" insofar as it involves the production of expertise and appropriation of knowledge by health professionals. We conclude by discussing La Mesa's choice to become a legal expert on abortion as opposed to recruiting academics to do this work or encouraging women to produce and disseminate this knowledge.
Assuntos
Aborto Induzido/legislação & jurisprudência , Crime , Direitos Humanos , Mudança Social , Feminino , Pessoal de Saúde , Humanos , GravidezRESUMO
Objetivo: Se determinó el diagnóstico oftalmológico de estudiantes de odontología de la Universidad del Valle (Cali, Colombia), y se compararon los hallazgos de la valoración oftalmológica entre un grupo de estudiantes previamente expuestos, y otro de estudiantes no expuestos al uso de la lámpara de fotocurado en la práctica clínica. Métodos: Se aplicó una encuesta por entrevista acerca de posibles patologías, accidentes y variables relacionadas con daño ocular, entre ellas el uso de la lámpara de fotocurado. Adicional a esta, a cada estudiante se le practicó un electroretinograma, una fotografía de fondo de ojo y un examen oftalmológico completo. Resultados: No se encontró una asociación estadísticamente significativa entre el daño ocular y la exposición a la lámpara, pero se observó una tendencia a un mayor porcentaje de estudiantes de noveno semestre que presentaron algún tipo de daño ocular, comparado con los estudiantes de quinto semestre. Conclusiones: Es importante continuar promoviendo y profundizando el conocimiento acerca de medidas de bioseguridad en estudiantes de odontología, docentes, auxiliares y pacientes, así como dar continuidad a trabajos interdisciplinarios como éste, en el cual se trabajó de manera complementaria con oftalmólogos. Se recomienda realizar estudios posteriores a la misma población después de un periodo de tiempo mayor a dos años.(AU)
Objective: We determined the ophthalmic diagnostic of dental students at the University del Valle (Cali, Colombia), andcompared the findings of ophthalmologic evaluation in a group of students previously exposed to the use of the curing light in clinical practice, and other group of students not exposed to it. Methods: It was implemented a survey by interview to report possible diseases, accidents and variables related to ocular pathology, including the use of curing lamp. Additional to this, it was performed an electroretinography, a photograph of eye fundus and a complete ophthalmological examination to each student. Results: It was not found a statistically significant association between injury and exposure to the lamp, but there was a trend towards a higher percentage of ninthsemester students who presented some kind of ocular pathology, compared with students coursing fifth semester. Conclusion: It is important to continue promoting and increasing knowledge about biosafety standards in dental students, dentists, assistants and patients, and give continuity to interdisciplinary work like this, which worked in a complementary manner with ophthalmologists. Further studies are recommended in the same population, after a period longer than two years.(AU)