Search

The integration of human rights principles in sexual and reproductive health (SRH) research is often recognised to be of value. Good examples abound but lack of clarity persists as to what defines rights-inclusive SRH research. To help move the field forward, this article seeks to explore how key stakeholders responsible for funding and supporting rights in SRH research understand the strengths and weaknesses of what is being done and where, and begins to catalogue potential tools and actions for the future. Interviews with a range of key stakeholders including international civil servants, donors and researchers committed to and supportive of integrating rights into SRH research were conducted and analysed. Interviews confirmed important differences in what is understood to be SRH rights-oriented research and what it can accomplish. General barriers include lack of understanding about the importance of rights; lack of clarity as to the best approach to integration; fear of adding more work with little added benefit; as well as the lack of methodological guidance or published research methodologies that integrate rights. Suggestions include the development of a comprehensive checklist for each phase of research from developing a research statement through ultimately to publication; development of training modules and workshops; inclusion of rights in curricula; changes in journal requirements; and agreement among key funding sources to mandate the integration of rights principles in research proposals they receive. As a next step, cataloguing issues and concerns at local levels can help move the integration of human rights in SRH research from rhetoric to reality.

The need to prioritise those furthest behind is well understood in global health circles, and how human rights norms and standards can help often touted. As rights concerns are particularly recognised in sexual and reproductive health (SRH) programming, as part of a larger exercise, a review was conducted to identify documented barriers and facilitators to implementation. Given the role global guidance plays in implementing rights-based approaches to SRH, UNDP/UNFPA/UNICEF/WHO/World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction (HRP) guidelines, tools, recommendations and guidance that include the explicit mention of human rights principles served as the basis for this exercise. This was followed by an extensive review of the literature. Sources reviewed confirmed barriers include not only broad structural, policy and health systems barriers but financial, staffing and time constraints, as well as lack of understanding of concretely how to include human rights in these efforts. Facilitators include the existence of human rights champions, leadership, strong civil society participation, training, and funding made available specifically for implementation. Investment in indicators and documentation sensitive to human rights is warranted in sexual and reproductive health, as well as other health topics, to best serve populations who need them most.

This paper examines different dimensions of sexual health as related to the measurement of sexual health indicators and the proposed changes in the International Classification of Diseases to address issues related to sexuality and sexual health with an aim of informing health policy-making and programming. The lack of mechanisms for monitoring and evaluating sexual health outcomes has impeded the development of policies and programmes that support sexual health. The potential impact of changes to the ICD-11 is major and far-reaching given that the ICD is used by countries to define eligibility and access to health services and to formulate relevant policies and laws, and is used by health professionals as a basis for conceptualizing health conditions, treatments and outcomes. Improving the measurement of sexual health-related indicators builds the evidence base on scientific knowledge of sex, sexuality, sexual health and rights. As we stand on the cusp of the post-2015 era and the development agenda transitions to the Sustainable Development Goals, a unique opportunity presents itself to further consider how sexual health is defined, conceptualized, and monitored.

In 2011, the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) issued two landmark decisions. In Alyne da Silva Pimentel v. Brazil, the first maternal death case decided by an international human rights body, it confirms that States have a human rights obligation to guarantee that all women, irrespective of their income or racial background, have access to timely, non-discriminatory, and appropriate maternal health services. In L.C. v. Peru, concerning a 13-year-old rape victim who was denied a therapeutic abortion and had an operation on her spine delayed that left her seriously disabled as a result, it established that the State should guarantee access to abortion when a woman's physical or mental health is in danger, decriminalise abortion when pregnancy results from rape or sexual abuse, review its restrictive interpretation of therapeutic abortion and establish a mechanism to ensure that reproductive rights are understood and observed in all health care facilities. Both cases affirm that accessible and good quality health services are vital to women's human rights and expand States' obligations in relation to these. They also affirm that States must ensure national accountability for sexual and reproductive health rights, and provide remedies and redress in the event of violations. And they reaffirm the importance of international human rights bodies as sources of accountability for sexual and reproductive rights violations, especially where national accountability is absent or ineffective.