Physicians of Conscience: A Narrative Inquiry with Canadian Abortion Providers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The landscape of abortion provision in Canada is complex and features many competing stories. Despite the fact that abortion has been fully decriminalized in Canada since 1988, debates about the morality of abortion continue. Within the abortion literature and scholarship, the perspectives of abortion providers are rarely presented. This study is a narrative inquiry that explored, in depth, the experiences of four physicians who provide abortion care in Canada. Narrative inquiry proceeds from an ontological commitment to experience, making it a useful means to deeply explore the experiences of abortion providers. In this inquiry, stories of abortion provision were lived and told alongside stories of being a mother, a daughter, a friend, a partner, and a woman. Four narrative accounts in this dissertation evoke the ways in which the participants composed themselves as abortion providers. Each of these accounts speaks to the complexities, tensions, and possibilities for understanding abortion provision. Although each narrative account is an individual story, the participants’ stories meet each other at key moments, and in ways that enable the weaving of what are termed narrative threads. These threads are moments of conversation between the stories; they are commonalities and resonances that help to consider participants’ narrative accounts in the context of broader conversations about abortion provision. Seven narrative threads are presented in this dissertation. This inquiry argues for abortion as a critical social justice issue that has social work implications, and frames abortion providers as physicians of conscience; as practitioners who think about things with intention, have morality, and act purposefully. At a time when conscientious objection is being used so readily to refuse people the sexual and reproductive health care that they need, it is especially important to use reasons of conscience to affirm the provision of abortion care. The stories in this dissertation can inform both abortion advocates, as well as those who oppose abortion, by introducing new, or at least different, ways of thinking about the experiences of abortion providers. This dissertation concludes with reflections on the process of narrative inquiry and makes recommendations for research and social work policy and practice.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".