ArticleReproductive health2026
Denial of access to sexual and reproductive health services in Europe: an analysis of cases from the European court of human rights (1976-2023).
Article in Reproductive health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- "The significance of clinical foetal autopsy for reproductive health care: an ethical analysis in the German context".Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In June 2021, the European Parliament agreed to ensure universal and adequate access to high-quality sexual and reproductive health (SRH) care and to promote SRH education in all European Member States, in accordance with the European Convention on Human Rights. The aim of this research was to systematically pursue a qualitative analysis of applications concerning the denial of access to SRH services which have been brought before the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) up to December 2023 from an ethical perspective. A systematic search of judgments by the ECtHR was conducted in the HUDOC database using a combination of keywords resulting in nine thematic search categories. A thematic analysis approach was then used to describe and interpret the judgments through the lens of intersectionality and according to the four bioethical principles of “autonomy”, “beneficence”, “non-maleficence” and “justice”. N = 23 judgments from n = 15 EU Member States of the Council of Europe that met the research objectives were included in the descriptive analysis. These confirmed the violation of Articles 3, 5, 8 and 10 of the Convention. Violations of SRH services are indicators of social and public health policies that increase the vulnerability of marginalised groups. Our analysis shows that the discourse on access to SRH needs to shift from reproductive choices being unavailable to marginalised people to reproductive rights. Given the complexity of scientific advances in biomedicine and in response to evolving reproductive health needs, SRH services in Europe need to be monitored by the EU to secure equitable and non-discriminatory access.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.