Obstetric and gynecological violence: Empowering patients to recognize and prevent it

recent years, media and social networks have brought to light growing denunciations of obstetric and gynecological care that is considered violent, disrespectful, abusive or neglectful. These behaviours, words, acts and omissions are known as obstetric and gynecological violence (OGV).
Beyond the medical domain, OGV stems from gender-based violence as well as biases and stereotypes about women (biological or gendered) and mothers. More particularly, OGV can encompass the expression of medical racism and colonialism that places racialized and Indigenous individuals at greater risk to experience it.

Obstetric and gynecological violence

Canadian studies have identified several characteristics that help us define OGV:

• treatment conducted without the patient’s free and informed consent,
• professional and organizational practices that deprive individuals of their reproductive autonomy, and
• the patient’s subjective appreciation of her health-care experience.

Systemic factors are also central to the occurrence of OGV, combined with interpersonal factors between women and health-care professionals. In other words, it is not just about incompetent or ill-intentioned staff. It is also about common professional and organizational practices, like economic factors, professional cultures, and hierarchical and authority relationships between health-care providers and patients. Another factor is stereotypes, prejudices and gender biases about female reproduction that are still common.
Beyond the medical domain, OGV stems from gender-based violence as well as biases and stereotypes about women (biological or gendered) and mothers. (Shutterstock)
The use of the term violence has been criticized, mainly because it suggests the behaviour contains an intent to harm. Some also argue that the use of the term may be considered as a form of violence against health-care professionals.
Nevertheless, it is increasingly acknowledged that this term is necessary to name a reality that would otherwise be ignored due to the epistemic injustices that often impair women’s experiences. Epistemic injustices mean that women’s testimonies are disbelieved or belittled, and that their experiences of violence are seen as normal, ignored or dismissed out of hand.
From what we know, OGV happens quite often. A study conducted in the United States shows that 17.3 per cent of women respondents reported obstetric mistreatment. A survey of women who gave birth in Australia reveals that 11.6 per cent of 8,546 respondents experienced obstetric violence. They reported that it left them feeling dehumanized, violated and/or powerless. Examples included vaginal exams without consent and being coerced into interventions ranging from use of stirrups to labour induction and C-sections.
Gynecological violence is less documented in the current research, although some studies in France indicate that medical acts as commonplace as prescribing contraceptive pills may give rise to behaviours and statements that violate women’s dignity, such as denial of suffering, blame, judgement, imposed treatment, withheld information, misinformation, coercive heteronormativity and medical paternalism.
We do not yet have sufficient quantitative Canadian data to accurately determine how often and in which circumstances OGV happens in Canada. However, in the coming years, ongoing large-scale studies will answer these questions with recent years, media and social networks have brought to light growing denunciations of obstetric and gynecological care that is considered violent, disrespectful, abusive or neglectful. These behaviours, words, acts and omissions are known as obstetric and gynecological violence (OGV).
Beyond the medical domain, OGV stems from gender-based violence as well as biases and stereotypes about women (biological or gendered) and mothers. More particularly, OGV can encompass the expression of medical racism and colonialism that places racialized and Indigenous individuals at greater risk to experience it.

Obstetric and gynecological violence

Canadian studies have identified several characteristics that help us define OGV:

• treatment conducted without the patient’s free and informed consent,
• professional and organizational practices that deprive individuals of their reproductive autonomy, and
• the patient’s subjective appreciation of her health-care experience.

Systemic factors are also central to the occurrence of OGV, combined with interpersonal factors between women and health-care professionals. In other words, it is not just about incompetent or ill-intentioned staff. It is also about common professional and organizational practices, like economic factors, professional cultures, and hierarchical and authority relationships between health-care providers and patients. Another factor is stereotypes, prejudices and gender biases about female reproduction that are still common.
Beyond the medical domain, OGV stems from gender-based violence as well as biases and stereotypes about women (biological or gendered) and mothers. (Shutterstock)
The use of the term violence has been criticized, mainly because it suggests the behaviour contains an intent to harm. Some also argue that the use of the term may be considered as a form of violence against health-care professionals.
Nevertheless, it is increasingly acknowledged that this term is necessary to name a reality that would otherwise be ignored due to the epistemic injustices that often impair women’s experiences. Epistemic injustices mean that women’s testimonies are disbelieved or belittled, and that their experiences of violence are seen as normal, ignored or dismissed out of hand.
From what we know, OGV happens quite often. A study conducted in the United States shows that 17.3 per cent of women respondents reported obstetric mistreatment. A survey of women who gave birth in Australia reveals that 11.6 per cent of 8,546 respondents experienced obstetric violence. They reported that it left them feeling dehumanized, violated and/or powerless. Examples included vaginal exams without consent and being coerced into interventions ranging from use of stirrups to labour induction and C-sections.
Gynecological violence is less documented in the current research, although some studies in France indicate that medical acts as commonplace as prescribing contraceptive pills may give rise to behaviours and statements that violate women’s dignity, such as denial of suffering, blame, judgement, imposed treatment, withheld information, misinformation, coercive heteronormativity and medical paternalism.
We do not yet have sufficient quantitative Canadian data to accurately determine how often and in which circumstances OGV happens in Canada. However, in the coming years, ongoing large-scale studies will answer these questions with recent years, media and social networks have brought to light growing denunciations of obstetric and gynecological care that is considered violent, disrespectful, abusive or neglectful. These behaviours, words, acts and omissions are known as obstetric and gynecological violence (OGV).
Beyond the medical domain, OGV stems from gender-based violence as well as biases and stereotypes about women (biological or gendered) and mothers. More particularly, OGV can encompass the expression of medical racism and colonialism that places racialized and Indigenous individuals at greater risk to experience it.

Obstetric and gynecological violence

Canadian studies have identified several characteristics that help us define OGV:

• treatment conducted without the patient’s free and informed consent,
• professional and organizational practices that deprive individuals of their reproductive autonomy, and
• the patient’s subjective appreciation of her health-care experience.

Systemic factors are also central to the occurrence of OGV, combined with interpersonal factors between women and health-care professionals. In other words, it is not just about incompetent or ill-intentioned staff. It is also about common professional and organizational practices, like economic factors, professional cultures, and hierarchical and authority relationships between health-care providers and patients. Another factor is stereotypes, prejudices and gender biases about female reproduction that are still common.
Beyond the medical domain, OGV stems from gender-based violence as well as biases and stereotypes about women (biological or gendered) and mothers. (Shutterstock)
The use of the term violence has been criticized, mainly because it suggests the behaviour contains an intent to harm. Some also argue that the use of the term may be considered as a form of violence against health-care professionals.
Nevertheless, it is increasingly acknowledged that this term is necessary to name a reality that would otherwise be ignored due to the epistemic injustices that often impair women’s experiences. Epistemic injustices mean that women’s testimonies are disbelieved or belittled, and that their experiences of violence are seen as normal, ignored or dismissed out of hand.
From what we know, OGV happens quite often. A study conducted in the United States shows that 17.3 per cent of women respondents reported obstetric mistreatment. A survey of women who gave birth in Australia reveals that 11.6 per cent of 8,546 respondents experienced obstetric violence. They reported that it left them feeling dehumanized, violated and/or powerless. Examples included vaginal exams without consent and being coerced into interventions ranging from use of stirrups to labour induction and C-sections.
Gynecological violence is less documented in the current research, although some studies in France indicate that medical acts as commonplace as prescribing contraceptive pills may give rise to behaviours and statements that violate women’s dignity, such as denial of suffering, blame, judgement, imposed treatment, withheld information, misinformation, coercive heteronormativity and medical paternalism.
We do not yet have sufficient quantitative Canadian data to accurately determine how often and in which circumstances OGV happens in Canada. However, in the coming years, ongoing large-scale studies will answer these questions with 
recent years, media and social networks have brought to light growing denunciations of obstetric and gynecological care that is considered violent, disrespectful, abusive or neglectful. These behaviours, words, acts and omissions are known as obstetric and gynecological violence (OGV).
Beyond the medical domain, OGV stems from gender-based violence as well as biases and stereotypes about women (biological or gendered) and mothers. More particularly, OGV can encompass the expression of medical racism and colonialism that places racialized and Indigenous individuals at greater risk to experience it.

Obstetric and gynecological violence

Canadian studies have identified several characteristics that help us define OGV:

• treatment conducted without the patient’s free and informed consent,
• professional and organizational practices that deprive individuals of their reproductive autonomy, and
• the patient’s subjective appreciation of her health-care experience.

Systemic factors are also central to the occurrence of OGV, combined with interpersonal factors between women and health-care professionals. In other words, it is not just about incompetent or ill-intentioned staff. It is also about common professional and organizational practices, like economic factors, professional cultures, and hierarchical and authority relationships between health-care providers and patients. Another factor is stereotypes, prejudices and gender biases about female reproduction that are still common.
Beyond the medical domain, OGV stems from gender-based violence as well as biases and stereotypes about women (biological or gendered) and mothers. (Shutterstock)
The use of the term violence has been criticized, mainly because it suggests the behaviour contains an intent to harm. Some also argue that the use of the term may be considered as a form of violence against health-care professionals.
Nevertheless, it is increasingly acknowledged that this term is necessary to name a reality that would otherwise be ignored due to the epistemic injustices that often impair women’s experiences. Epistemic injustices mean that women’s testimonies are disbelieved or belittled, and that their experiences of violence are seen as normal, ignored or dismissed out of hand.
From what we know, OGV happens quite often. A study conducted in the United States shows that 17.3 per cent of women respondents reported obstetric mistreatment. A survey of women who gave birth in Australia reveals that 11.6 per cent of 8,546 respondents experienced obstetric violence. They reported that it left them feeling dehumanized, violated and/or powerless. Examples included vaginal exams without consent and being coerced into interventions ranging from use of stirrups to labour induction and C-sections.
Gynecological violence is less documented in the current research, although some studies in France indicate that medical acts as commonplace as prescribing contraceptive pills may give rise to behaviours and statements that violate women’s dignity, such as denial of suffering, blame, judgement, imposed treatment, withheld information, misinformation, coercive heteronormativity and medical paternalism.
We do not yet have sufficient quantitative Canadian data to accurately determine how often and in which circumstances OGV happens in Canada. However, in the coming years, ongoing large-scale studies will answer these questions with recent years, media and social networks have brought to light growing denunciations of obstetric and gynecological care that is considered violent, disrespectful, abusive or neglectful. These behaviours, words, acts and omissions are known as obstetric and gynecological violence (OGV).
Beyond the medical domain, OGV stems from gender-based violence as well as biases and stereotypes about women (biological or gendered) and mothers. More particularly, OGV can encompass the expression of medical racism and colonialism that places racialized and Indigenous individuals at greater risk to experience it.

Obstetric and gynecological violence

Canadian studies have identified several characteristics that help us define OGV:

• treatment conducted without the patient’s free and informed consent,
• professional and organizational practices that deprive individuals of their reproductive autonomy, and
• the patient’s subjective appreciation of her health-care experience.

Systemic factors are also central to the occurrence of OGV, combined with interpersonal factors between women and health-care professionals. In other words, it is not just about incompetent or ill-intentioned staff. It is also about common professional and organizational practices, like economic factors, professional cultures, and hierarchical and authority relationships between health-care providers and patients. Another factor is stereotypes, prejudices and gender biases about female reproduction that are still common.
Beyond the medical domain, OGV stems from gender-based violence as well as biases and stereotypes about women (biological or gendered) and mothers. (Shutterstock)
The use of the term violence has been criticized, mainly because it suggests the behaviour contains an intent to harm. Some also argue that the use of the term may be considered as a form of violence against health-care professionals.
Nevertheless, it is increasingly acknowledged that this term is necessary to name a reality that would otherwise be ignored due to the epistemic injustices that often impair women’s experiences. Epistemic injustices mean that women’s testimonies are disbelieved or belittled, and that their experiences of violence are seen as normal, ignored or dismissed out of hand.
From what we know, OGV happens quite often. A study conducted in the United States shows that 17.3 per cent of women respondents reported obstetric mistreatment. A survey of women who gave birth in Australia reveals that 11.6 per cent of 8,546 respondents experienced obstetric violence. They reported that it left them feeling dehumanized, violated and/or powerless. Examples included vaginal exams without consent and being coerced into interventions ranging from use of stirrups to labour induction and C-sections.
Gynecological violence is less documented in the current research, although some studies in France indicate that medical acts as commonplace as prescribing contraceptive pills may give rise to behaviours and statements that violate women’s dignity, such as denial of suffering, blame, judgement, imposed treatment, withheld information, misinformation, coercive heteronormativity and medical paternalism.
We do not yet have sufficient quantitative Canadian data to accurately determine how often and in which circumstances OGV happens in Canada. However, in the coming years, ongoing large-scale studies will answer these questions with 
recent years, media and social networks have brought to light growing denunciations of obstetric and gynecological care that is considered violent, disrespectful, abusive or neglectful. These behaviours, words, acts and omissions are known as obstetric and gynecological violence (OGV).
Beyond the medical domain, OGV stems from gender-based violence as well as biases and stereotypes about women (biological or gendered) and mothers. More particularly, OGV can encompass the expression of medical racism and colonialism that places racialized and Indigenous individuals at greater risk to experience it.

Obstetric and gynecological violence

Canadian studies have identified several characteristics that help us define OGV:

• treatment conducted without the patient’s free and informed consent,
• professional and organizational practices that deprive individuals of their reproductive autonomy, and
• the patient’s subjective appreciation of her health-care experience.

Systemic factors are also central to the occurrence of OGV, combined with interpersonal factors between women and health-care professionals. In other words, it is not just about incompetent or ill-intentioned staff. It is also about common professional and organizational practices, like economic factors, professional cultures, and hierarchical and authority relationships between health-care providers and patients. Another factor is stereotypes, prejudices and gender biases about female reproduction that are still common.
Beyond the medical domain, OGV stems from gender-based violence as well as biases and stereotypes about women (biological or gendered) and mothers. (Shutterstock)
The use of the term violence has been criticized, mainly because it suggests the behaviour contains an intent to harm. Some also argue that the use of the term may be considered as a form of violence against health-care professionals.
Nevertheless, it is increasingly acknowledged that this term is necessary to name a reality that would otherwise be ignored due to the epistemic injustices that often impair women’s experiences. Epistemic injustices mean that women’s testimonies are disbelieved or belittled, and that their experiences of violence are seen as normal, ignored or dismissed out of hand.
From what we know, OGV happens quite often. A study conducted in the United States shows that 17.3 per cent of women respondents reported obstetric mistreatment. A survey of women who gave birth in Australia reveals that 11.6 per cent of 8,546 respondents experienced obstetric violence. They reported that it left them feeling dehumanized, violated and/or powerless. Examples included vaginal exams without consent and being coerced into interventions ranging from use of stirrups to labour induction and C-sections.
Gynecological violence is less documented in the current research, although some studies in France indicate that medical acts as commonplace as prescribing contraceptive pills may give rise to behaviours and statements that violate women’s dignity, such as denial of suffering, blame, judgement, imposed treatment, withheld information, misinformation, coercive heteronormativity and medical paternalism.
We do not yet have sufficient quantitative Canadian data to accurately determine how often and in which circumstances OGV happens in Canada. However, in the coming years, ongoing large-scale studies will answer these questions with 
recent years, media and social networks have brought to light growing denunciations of obstetric and gynecological care that is considered violent, disrespectful, abusive or neglectful. These behaviours, words, acts and omissions are known as obstetric and gynecological violence (OGV).
Beyond the medical domain, OGV stems from gender-based violence as well as biases and stereotypes about women (biological or gendered) and mothers. More particularly, OGV can encompass the expression of medical racism and colonialism that places racialized and Indigenous individuals at greater risk to experience it.

Obstetric and gynecological violence

Canadian studies have identified several characteristics that help us define OGV:

• treatment conducted without the patient’s free and informed consent,
• professional and organizational practices that deprive individuals of their reproductive autonomy, and
• the patient’s subjective appreciation of her health-care experience.

Systemic factors are also central to the occurrence of OGV, combined with interpersonal factors between women and health-care professionals. In other words, it is not just about incompetent or ill-intentioned staff. It is also about common professional and organizational practices, like economic factors, professional cultures, and hierarchical and authority relationships between health-care providers and patients. Another factor is stereotypes, prejudices and gender biases about female reproduction that are still common.
Beyond the medical domain, OGV stems from gender-based violence as well as biases and stereotypes about women (biological or gendered) and mothers. (Shutterstock)
The use of the term violence has been criticized, mainly because it suggests the behaviour contains an intent to harm. Some also argue that the use of the term may be considered as a form of violence against health-care professionals.
Nevertheless, it is increasingly acknowledged that this term is necessary to name a reality that would otherwise be ignored due to the epistemic injustices that often impair women’s experiences. Epistemic injustices mean that women’s testimonies are disbelieved or belittled, and that their experiences of violence are seen as normal, ignored or dismissed out of hand.
From what we know, OGV happens quite often. A study conducted in the United States shows that 17.3 per cent of women respondents reported obstetric mistreatment. A survey of women who gave birth in Australia reveals that 11.6 per cent of 8,546 respondents experienced obstetric violence. They reported that it left them feeling dehumanized, violated and/or powerless. Examples included vaginal exams without consent and being coerced into interventions ranging from use of stirrups to labour induction and C-sections.
Gynecological violence is less documented in the current research, although some studies in France indicate that medical acts as commonplace as prescribing contraceptive pills may give rise to behaviours and statements that violate women’s dignity, such as denial of suffering, blame, judgement, imposed treatment, withheld information, misinformation, coercive heteronormativity and medical paternalism.
We do not yet have sufficient quantitative Canadian data to accurately determine how often and in which circumstances OGV happens in Canada. However, in the coming years, ongoing large-scale studies will answer these questions with 
recent years, media and social networks have brought to light growing denunciations of obstetric and gynecological care that is considered violent, disrespectful, abusive or neglectful. These behaviours, words, acts and omissions are known as obstetric and gynecological violence (OGV).
Beyond the medical domain, OGV stems from gender-based violence as well as biases and stereotypes about women (biological or gendered) and mothers. More particularly, OGV can encompass the expression of medical racism and colonialism that places racialized and Indigenous individuals at greater risk to experience it.

Obstetric and gynecological violence

Canadian studies have identified several characteristics that help us define OGV:

• treatment conducted without the patient’s free and informed consent,
• professional and organizational practices that deprive individuals of their reproductive autonomy, and
• the patient’s subjective appreciation of her health-care experience.

Systemic factors are also central to the occurrence of OGV, combined with interpersonal factors between women and health-care professionals. In other words, it is not just about incompetent or ill-intentioned staff. It is also about common professional and organizational practices, like economic factors, professional cultures, and hierarchical and authority relationships between health-care providers and patients. Another factor is stereotypes, prejudices and gender biases about female reproduction that are still common.
Beyond the medical domain, OGV stems from gender-based violence as well as biases and stereotypes about women (biological or gendered) and mothers. (Shutterstock)
The use of the term violence has been criticized, mainly because it suggests the behaviour contains an intent to harm. Some also argue that the use of the term may be considered as a form of violence against health-care professionals.
Nevertheless, it is increasingly acknowledged that this term is necessary to name a reality that would otherwise be ignored due to the epistemic injustices that often impair women’s experiences. Epistemic injustices mean that women’s testimonies are disbelieved or belittled, and that their experiences of violence are seen as normal, ignored or dismissed out of hand.
From what we know, OGV happens quite often. A study conducted in the United States shows that 17.3 per cent of women respondents reported obstetric mistreatment. A survey of women who gave birth in Australia reveals that 11.6 per cent of 8,546 respondents experienced obstetric violence. They reported that it left them feeling dehumanized, violated and/or powerless. Examples included vaginal exams without consent and being coerced into interventions ranging from use of stirrups to labour induction and C-sections.
Gynecological violence is less documented in the current research, although some studies in France indicate that medical acts as commonplace as prescribing contraceptive pills may give rise to behaviours and statements that violate women’s dignity, such as denial of suffering, blame, judgement, imposed treatment, withheld information, misinformation, coercive heteronormativity and medical paternalism.
We do not yet have sufficient quantitative Canadian data to accurately determine how often and in which circumstances OGV happens in Canada. However, in the coming years, ongoing large-scale studies will answer these questions with 
recent years, media and social networks have brought to light growing denunciations of obstetric and gynecological care that is considered violent, disrespectful, abusive or neglectful. These behaviours, words, acts and omissions are known as obstetric and gynecological violence (OGV).
Beyond the medical domain, OGV stems from gender-based violence as well as biases and stereotypes about women (biological or gendered) and mothers. More particularly, OGV can encompass the expression of medical racism and colonialism that places racialized and Indigenous individuals at greater risk to experience it.

Obstetric and gynecological violence

Canadian studies have identified several characteristics that help us define OGV:

• treatment conducted without the patient’s free and informed consent,
• professional and organizational practices that deprive individuals of their reproductive autonomy, and
• the patient’s subjective appreciation of her health-care experience.

Systemic factors are also central to the occurrence of OGV, combined with interpersonal factors between women and health-care professionals. In other words, it is not just about incompetent or ill-intentioned staff. It is also about common professional and organizational practices, like economic factors, professional cultures, and hierarchical and authority relationships between health-care providers and patients. Another factor is stereotypes, prejudices and gender biases about female reproduction that are still common.
Beyond the medical domain, OGV stems from gender-based violence as well as biases and stereotypes about women (biological or gendered) and mothers. (Shutterstock)
The use of the term violence has been criticized, mainly because it suggests the behaviour contains an intent to harm. Some also argue that the use of the term may be considered as a form of violence against health-care professionals.
Nevertheless, it is increasingly acknowledged that this term is necessary to name a reality that would otherwise be ignored due to the epistemic injustices that often impair women’s experiences. Epistemic injustices mean that women’s testimonies are disbelieved or belittled, and that their experiences of violence are seen as normal, ignored or dismissed out of hand.
From what we know, OGV happens quite often. A study conducted in the United States shows that 17.3 per cent of women respondents reported obstetric mistreatment. A survey of women who gave birth in Australia reveals that 11.6 per cent of 8,546 respondents experienced obstetric violence. They reported that it left them feeling dehumanized, violated and/or powerless. Examples included vaginal exams without consent and being coerced into interventions ranging from use of stirrups to labour induction and C-sections.
Gynecological violence is less documented in the current research, although some studies in France indicate that medical acts as commonplace as prescribing contraceptive pills may give rise to behaviours and statements that violate women’s dignity, such as denial of suffering, blame, judgement, imposed treatment, withheld information, misinformation, coercive heteronormativity and medical paternalism.
We do not yet have sufficient quantitative Canadian data to accurately determine how often and in which circumstances OGV happens in Canada. However, in the coming years, ongoing large-scale studies will answer these questions with