請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/86413
完整後設資料紀錄
DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.advisor | 李柏翰(Po-Han Lee) | |
dc.contributor.author | Chong-Min Su | en |
dc.contributor.author | 蘇崇閔 | zh_TW |
dc.date.accessioned | 2023-03-19T23:54:22Z | - |
dc.date.copyright | 2022-10-03 | |
dc.date.issued | 2022 | |
dc.date.submitted | 2022-08-20 | |
dc.identifier.citation | 國內法律 1.身心障礙者權益保障法。 2.身心障礙者權益保障法施行細則。 3.身心障礙者個人照顧服務辦法。 4.身心障礙者輔具費用補助辦法。 5.身心障礙者權利公約施行法。 6.公民與政治權利國際公約及經濟社會文化權利國際公約施行法。 7.消除對婦女一切形式歧視公約施行法。 8.優生保健法。 9.優生保健法施行細則。 10.優生保健措施減免或補助費用辦法。 11.人工生殖法。 國際文書 1.身心障礙者權利公約(Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities)。 2.經濟社會文化權利公約(International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights)。 3.消除對婦女一切形式歧視公約(Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women)。 4.兒童權利公約(Convention on the Rights of Children)。 5.公民與政治權利公約(International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights)。 6.國際人口與發展會議行動綱領(International Conference on Population and Development Program of Action)。 7.經濟社會文化權利公約第3、5、14、16、20、22號一般性意見。 8.消除對婦女一切形式歧視公約第18、24、25號一般性建議。 9.身心障礙者權利公約第2、3、6號一般性意見。 10.世界衛生組織憲章(Constitution of the World Health Organization)。 英文文獻 Agar, N. (2008). Liberal eugenics: In defence of human enhancement. John Wiley & Sons. Alhusen, J. L., Bloom, T., Laughon, K., Behan, L., & Hughes, R. B. (2021). Perceptions of barriers to effective family planning services among women with disabilities. Disability and Health Journal, 14(3), 101055. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. (2021). Routine Tests During Pregnancy. URL: https://www.acog.org/womens-health/faqs/routine-tests-during-pregnancy. Accessed date: 2022.05.24. Beauchamp‐Pryor, K. (2011). Impairment, cure and identity:‘Where do I fit in?’. Disability & Society, 26(1), 5-17. Becker, H., Andrews, E., Walker, L. O., & Phillips, C. S. (2021). Health and Well-Being among Women with Physical Disabilities After Childbirth: An Exploratory Study. Women's Health Issues, 31(2), 140-147. Bloom, T. L., Mosher, W., Alhusen, J., Lantos, H., & Hughes, R. B. (2017). Fertility desires and intentions among US women by disability status: findings from the 2011–2013 National Survey of family growth. Maternal and child health journal, 21(8), 1606-1615. Charlton, J. I. (1998). Nothing About Us Without Us. Disability Oppression and Empowerment (1 ed.). University of California Press. de Melo-Martin, Inmaculada and Goering, Sara. (2022). Eugenics (E. N. Zalta, Ed. Summer 2022 ed.). Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. URL: https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2014/entries/eugenics/#toc. Accessed date: 2022.06.11. De Beco, G. (2020). Intersectionality and disability in international human rights law. The International Journal of Human Rights, 24(5), 593-614. Deierlein, A. L., Antoniak, K., Chan, M., Sassano, C., & Stein, C. R. (2021). Pregnancy‐related outcomes among women with physical disabilities: A systematic review. Paediatric and perinatal epidemiology, 35(6), 758-778. Gallagher, R. (2019). Redefining' CEDAW' to Include LGBT Rights: Incorporating Prohibitions against the Discrimination of Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity. S. Cal. Interdisc. LJ, 29, 637. Garland-Thomson, R. (2002). Integrating disability, transforming feminist theory. NWSA journal, 1-32. Garland-Thomson, R. (2005a). Feminist disability studies. Signs: Journal of women in Culture and Society, 30(2), 1557-1587. Garland-Thomson, R. (2005b). Disability and representation. Pmla, 120(2), 522-527. Gleason, J. L., Grewal, J., Chen, Z., Cernich, A. N., & Grantz, K. L. (2021). Risk of Adverse Maternal Outcomes in Pregnant Women With Disabilities. JAMA network open, 4(12), e2138414-e2138414. Hallgarten, L. (2020). Women's reproductive rights. The Lancet, 396(10246), 234-235. Higuchi, A., Takita, M., Ozaki, A., Kimura, H., & Watanabe, M. (2019). Forced sterilization during post-war era in Japan. QJM: An International Journal of Medicine, 112(10), 829-829. Holtmaat, R., & Post, P. (2015). Enhancing LGBTI Rights by Changing the Interpretation of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women? Nordic Journal of Human Rights, 33(4), 319-336. Horner-Johnson, W. (2019). Shining a light on reproductive health care needs of women with disabilities. Journal of Women's Health, 28(7), 888-889. Horner-Johnson, W., Biel, F. M., Caughey, A. B., & Darney, B. G. (2019). Differences in prenatal care by presence and type of maternal disability. American journal of preventive medicine, 56(3), 376-382. Horner-Johnson, W., Darney, B. G., Kulkarni-Rajasekhara, S., Quigley, B., & Caughey, A. B. (2016). Pregnancy among US women: differences by presence, type, and complexity of disability. American journal of obstetrics and gynecology, 214(4), 529. e521-529. e529. Horner-Johnson, W., Kulkarni-Rajasekhara, S., Darney, B. G., Dissanayake, M., & Caughey, A. B. (2017). Live birth, miscarriage, and abortion among U.S. women with and without disabilities. Disability and Health Journal, 10(3), 382-386. Horner‐Johnson, W., Dissanayake, M., Wu, J. P., Caughey, A. B., & Darney, B. G. (2020). Pregnancy intendedness by maternal disability status and type in the United States. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 52(1), 31-38. Iezzoni, L. I., Wint, A. J., Smeltzer, S. C., & Ecker, J. L. (2015). Effects of disability on pregnancy experiences among women with impaired mobility. Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica, 94(2), 133-140. Iezzoni, L. I., Wint, A. J., Smeltzer, S. C., & Ecker, J. L. (2015). “How did that happen?” Public responses to women with mobility disability during pregnancy. Disability and Health Journal, 8(3), 380-387. Iezzoni, L. I., Wint, A. J., Smeltzer, S. C., & Ecker, J. L. (2017). Recommendations about pregnancy from women with mobility disability to their peers. Women's Health Issues, 27(1), 75-82. Kostruba, A., Pillai, D., & Aneesh, V. (2021). Women’S Reproductive Rights And Their Scope Under International Legal Frameworks. Pillai Aneesh V., Kostruba, Anatoliy (2021). Women’s reproductive rights and their scope under international legal frameworks. Entrepreneurship, Economy and Law, 8, 18-28. Lawler, D., Lalor, J., & Begley, C. (2013). Access to maternity services for women with a physical disability: a systematic review of the literature. International Journal of Childbirth, 3(4), 203-217. Lipson, J. G. (2000). Pregnancy, birth, and disability: women's health care experiences. Health care for women international, 21(1), 11-26. Long-Bellil, L., Mitra, M., Iezzoni, L. I., Smeltzer, S. C., & Smith, L. (2017a). The impact of physical disability on pregnancy and childbirth. Journal of women's health, 26(8), 878-885. Long-Bellil, L., Mitra, M., Iezzoni, L. I., Smeltzer, S. C., & Smith, L. D. (2017b). Experiences and unmet needs of women with physical disabilities for pain relief during labor and delivery. Disability and health journal, 10(3), 440-444. Long-Bellil, L., Valentine, A., & Mitra, M. (2021). Achieving equity: including women with disabilities in maternal and child health policies and programs. In Public Health Perspectives on Disability (pp. 207-224). Springer. Malouf, R., Henderson, J., & Redshaw, M. (2017). Access and quality of maternity care for disabled women during pregnancy, birth and the postnatal period in England: data from a national survey. BMJ open, 7(7), e016757. Margaret Fonow, M., & Cook, J. A. (2005). Feminist methodology: New applications in the academy and public policy. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 30(4), 2211-2236. Meyer, E. (2015). Designing Women: The definition of woman in the convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women. Chicago Journal of International Law, 16, 553. Mitra, M., Akobirshoev, I., Moring, N. S., Long-Bellil, L., Smeltzer, S. C., Smith, L. D., & Iezzoni, L. I. (2017). Access to and satisfaction with prenatal care among pregnant women with physical disabilities: findings from a national survey. Journal of women's health, 26(12), 1356-1363. Mitra, M., Long-Bellil, L. M., Iezzoni, L. I., Smeltzer, S. C., & Smith, L. D. (2016). Pregnancy among women with physical disabilities: Unmet needs and recommendations on navigating pregnancy. Disability and Health Journal, 9(3), 457-463. Mitra, M., Smith, L. D., Smeltzer, S. C., Long-Bellil, L. M., Moring, N. S., & Iezzoni, L. I. (2017). Barriers to providing maternity care to women with physical disabilities: perspectives from health care practitioners. Disability and health journal, 10(3), 445-450. Mondada, L. (2007). Commentary: Transcript variations and the indexicality of transcribing practices. Discourse studies, 9(6), 809-821. Moras, R. (2018). Feminist Disability Theory. Disability in American Life [2 volumes]: An Encyclopedia of Concepts, Policies, and Controversies, 105(5), 282. Morton, C., Le, J. T., Shahbandar, L., Hammond, C., Murphy, E. A., & Kirschner, K. L. (2013). Pregnancy outcomes of women with physical disabilities: a matched cohort study. Pm&r, 5(2), 90-98. Mosher, W., Bloom, T., Hughes, R., Horton, L., Mojtabai, R., & Alhusen, J. L. (2017). Disparities in receipt of family planning services by disability status: New estimates from the National Survey of Family Growth. Disability and Health Journal, 10(3), 394-399. Mosher, W., Hughes, R. B., Bloom, T., Horton, L., Mojtabai, R., & Alhusen, J. L. (2018). Contraceptive use by disability status: new national estimates from the National Survey of Family Growth. Contraception, 97(6), 552-558. Nishat, F., Lunsky, Y., Tarasoff, L. A., & Brown, H. K. (2022). Prenatal care adequacy among women with disabilities: A population-based study. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 62(1), 39-49. O'Connor-Terry, C., & Harris, J. (2022). Pregnancy decision-making in women with physical disabilities. Disability and Health Journal, 15(1), 101176. Open Society Foundation. (2011). Against Her Will: Forced and Coerced Sterilization of Women Worldwide. Patel, P. (2017). Forced sterilization of women as discrimination. Public Health Reviews, 38(1), 15. Peta, C. (2017). Disability is not asexuality: the childbearing experiences and aspirations of women with disability in Zimbabwe. Reproductive Health Matters, 25(50), 10-19. Powell, R. M., Mitra, M., Smeltzer, S. C., Long-Bellil, L. M., Smith, L. D., & Iezzoni, L. I. (2017). Family attitudes and reactions toward pregnancy among women with physical disabilities. Women's Health Issues, 27(3), 345-350. Shakespeare, T. (1998). Choices and Rights: Eugenics, genetics and disability equality. Disability & Society, 13(5), 665–681. Shakespeare, T., and N. Watson. 2010. “Beyond Models: Understanding the Complexity of Disabled people’s Lives.” In New Directions in the Sociology of Chronic and Disabling Conditions, edited by G. Scambler and S. Scambler, 57–77. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Shakespeare, T. (2013). Disability rights and wrongs revisited. Routledge. Shin, J. E., Cho, G. J., Bak, S., Won, S. E., Han, S. W., Bin Lee, S., Oh, M.-J., & Kim, S. J. (2020). Pregnancy and neonatal outcomes of women with disabilities: a nationwide population-based study in South Korea. Scientific reports, 10(1), 1-8. Signore, C., Davis, M., Tingen, C. M., & Cernich, A. N. (2021). The intersection of disability and pregnancy: risks for maternal morbidity and mortality. Journal of Women's Health, 30(2), 147-153. Silvers, A., Francis, L. P., & Badesch, B. (2016). Reproductive rights and access to reproductive services for women with disabilities. American Medical Association Journal of Ethics, 18(4), 430-437. Smeltzer, S. C. (2007). Pregnancy in women with physical disabilities. Journal of Obstetric, Gynecologic & Neonatal Nursing, 36(1), 88-96. Smeltzer, S. C., Mitra, M., Long-Bellil, L., Iezzoni, L. I., & Smith, L. D. (2018). Obstetric clinicians' experiences and educational preparation for caring for pregnant women with physical disabilities: A qualitative study. Disability and health journal, 11(1), 8-13. Sommo, A., & Chaskes, J. (2013). Intersectionality and the disability: Some conceptual and methodological challenges. In Disability and intersecting statuses. Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Streur, C. S., Schafer, C. L., Garcia, V. P., Quint, E. H., Sandberg, D. E., Kalpakjian, C. Z., & Wittmann, D. A. (2020). ' He told me it would be extremely selfish of me to even consider [having kids]': The importance of reproductive health to women with spina bifida and the lack of support from their providers. Disability and Health Journal, 13(2), 100815. Tarasoff, L. A. (2017). “We don't know. We've never had anybody like you before”: Barriers to perinatal care for women with physical disabilities. Disability and health journal, 10(3), 426-433. Tarasoff, L. A., Murtaza, F., Carty, A., Salaeva, D., Hamilton, A. D., & Brown, H. K. (2020). Health of newborns and infants born to women with disabilities: A meta-analysis. Pediatrics, 146(6). Tarasoff, L. A., Ravindran, S., Malik, H., Salaeva, D., & Brown, H. K. (2020). Maternal disability and risk for pregnancy, delivery, and postpartum complications: a systematic review and meta-analysis. American journal of obstetrics and gynecology, 222(1), 27. e21-27. e32. Trani, J.-F., Browne, J., Kett, M., Bah, O., Morlai, T., Bailey, N., & Groce, N. (2011). Access to health care, reproductive health and disability: a large scale survey in Sierra Leone. Social science & medicine, 73(10), 1477-1489. United Nations. (2014). Reproductive Rights Are Human Rights. United Nations. Vehmas, S., & Watson, N. (2014). Moral wrongs, disadvantages, and disability: a critique of critical disability studies. Disability & Society, 29(4), 638-650. World Health Organization. (2006). Reproductive health indicators: guidelines for their generation, interpretation and analysis for global monitoring. World Health Organization. World Health Organization. (2016). WHO recommendations on antenatal care for a positive pregnancy experience. World Health Organization. World Health Organization. (2017). WHO recommendations on maternal health: guidelines approved by the WHO Guidelines Review Committee. World Health Organization Wu, J., Braunschweig, Y., Harris, L. H., Horner-Johnson, W., Ernst, S. D., & Stevens, B. (2019). Looking back while moving forward: a justice-based, intersectional approach to research on contraception and disability. Contraception, 99(5), 267-271. Wu, J. P., McKee, K. S., McKee, M. M., Meade, M. A., Plegue, M. A., & Sen, A. (2017a). Use of reversible contraceptive methods among US women with physical or sensory disabilities. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 49(3), 141-147. Wu, J. P., McKee, M. M., Mckee, K. S., Meade, M. A., Plegue, M., & Sen, A. (2017b). Female sterilization is more common among women with physical and/or sensory disabilities than women without disabilities in the United States. Disability and Health Journal, 10(3), 400-405. 中文文獻 Barry, A. M., & Yuill, C. 著,郭寶蓮、黃俊榮 譯(2009)。健康社會學導讀。新北市:韋伯。 Oliver, M. & Barnes, C. 著,紀大偉、張恒豪、邱大昕 譯(2021)。障礙政治:邁向消弭歧視的包容社會。新北市:群學。 人權公約施行監督聯盟(2017)。「身心障礙者權利公約初次國家報告」2017平行報告。臺北市:作者。 中時新聞網(2022)。閒置體育館華麗變身運動中心 打造身障者友善的運動環境。 取自:https://www.chinatimes.com/realtimenews/20220328002700260405?chdtv。檢索日期:2022年5月20日。 中華民國身心障礙聯盟(2013)。當媽也要「無障礙」。取自: http://meeting.enable.org.tw/news/detail.php?id=8999。檢索日期:2021年8月17日。 中華民國身心障礙聯盟(2017)。聯合國身心障礙者權利公約 平行報告書 (2017)。臺北市:作者。 中華民國身心障礙聯盟(2020)。身心障礙者懷孕手冊。臺北市:作者。 王國羽、吳佩晃、曾鈺婷、潘佩君(2009)。三種不同障礙類別之女性身心障礙者之生命經驗:由『女性』與『身心障礙』認同角度之詮釋 研究成果報告。臺北市:科技部。 王國羽、林昭吟、張恒豪 主編(2019)。障礙研究與社會政策。新北市:巨流。 王榮德 主編(2015)。公共衛生學中冊(修訂五版)。臺北市:臺大出版中心。 呂思嫺(2015)。女性障礙者的生育經驗與母職實踐。社區發展季刊,150,235-245。 李柏翰(2019)。突破政治綁架-國際人權在地化。法律人潮流誌,20,8-11。 李靜芳、姜逸群、林顯明、徐菊容(2010)。婦女於懷孕期間之運動原則。北市醫學雜誌,7(4),435-440。 沈巧元(2008)。從生育控制看墮胎罪的法律論述──以優生思想的內化為觀察點(未出版碩士論文)。國立臺灣大學,臺北市。 周月清、張恒豪。新制身心障礙鑑定與需求評估(ICF)執行之探討:身心障礙服務使用者觀點。東吳社會工作學報,32,1-34。 周月清、李婉萍、張家寧(2017)。身心障礙者福利服務之性別分析初探 期末報告。臺北市:社會及家庭署。 周月清、郭洛伶、周倩如、蔡亞庭(2018)。培力女性身心障礙者機制與模式之探討 期末報告。臺北市:社會及家庭署。 周妤靜(2021)。北市衛教鼓勵身障者裝避孕器 有如TNR?。取自: https://vision.udn.com/vision/story/120965/5917097。檢索日期:2022年3月22日。 林沛君(2020)。歧視的交織性-以CEDAW、CRC及CRPD 三項人權公約之交織為思考。臺灣國際法學刊,16(2),7-23。 林秀珊(2006)。肢體障礙女人之母職實踐(未出版碩士論文)。國立高雄師範大學,高雄市。 林昀嫻(2010)。我國人工生殖法制之挑戰與契機。中原財經法學,(25),63-112。 林昭吟、鄭雅之、張恒豪(2018)。當「不標準的病人」遇到醫療專業體制:身心障礙者就醫經驗的質化分析。臺大社會工作學刊,(38),99-145。 林萬億、劉燦宏 等著(2014)。臺灣身心障礙者權益與福利。臺北市:五南。 林駿杰、張恒豪(2020)。什麼是「障礙研究」?英美的理論發展、建制化與臺灣本土化歷程。人文及社會科學集刊,32(4), 645-691. 社會及家庭署(2018)。身心障礙福利簡介。取自: https://www.sfaa.gov.tw/SFAA/Pages/Detail.aspx?nodeid=349&pid=2435。 檢索日期:2021年8月18日。 臺灣障礙女性平權連線(2019)。身心障礙女性婦、產科、乳房就醫經驗調查發表。取自:http://dwera.org.tw/?p=219。檢索日期:2021年8月17日。 邱大昕(2012)。為什麼需要女性主義身心障礙研究?。婦研縱橫,(96),16-24。 邱大昕、陳美智(2015)。身心障礙醫療化的在地經驗與反思。科技醫療與社會,(21),135-158。 金植亨(김형식) 著,趙文麗 譯(2021)。由福利到人權:聯合國身心障礙者權利公約深/申論。新北市:巨流。 宜蘭縣政府社會處(2022)。宜蘭縣婦女生育津貼。取自: https://sntroot.e-land.gov.tw/cp.aspx?n=8FF8CE287F348716。檢索日期:2022年8月13日。 屏東縣政府社會處(2022)。孕婦產檢交通補助。取自:https://www.pthg.gov.tw/planjdp/cp.aspx?n=7587A0709B97B38B。檢索日期:2022年8月13日。 孫迺翊、廖福特 主編(2017)。身心障礙者權利公約。臺北市:新學林。 高雄市政府社會局(2022)。「好孕行得通」弱勢孕婦產檢交通補助。取自:https://socbu.kcg.gov.tw/index.php?prog=2&b_id=3&m_id=13&s_id=2006。檢索日期:2022年8月13日。 國民健康署(2014)。國民健康署自103年起,提高產前遺傳診斷(羊膜穿刺)補助費!。取自: https://www.hpa.gov.tw/Pages/Detail.aspx?nodeid=1134&pid=2799。檢索日期:2022年5月13日。 國民健康署(2015)。其他中央主管機關認定遺傳性疾病檢查。取自: https://www.hpa.gov.tw/Pages/List.aspx?nodeid=193。檢索日期:2022年6月11日。 國民健康署(2017)。產前遺傳診斷。取自: https://www.hpa.gov.tw/Pages/List.aspx?nodeid=193。檢索日期:2022年6月11日。 國民健康署(2019)。105年家庭與生育調查報告。臺北市:作者。 國民健康署(2021)。本署之產檢項目及各項檢驗補助費用。取自: https://www.hpa.gov.tw/Pages/List.aspx?nodeid=194。檢索日期:2022年5月24日。 張恆豪、蘇峰山(2009a)。Disability Rights and Wrongs。臺灣社會福利學刊, 7(2),191-205。 張恆豪、蘇峰山(2009b)。戰後臺灣國小教科書中的障礙者意象分析。臺灣社會學刊,42,143-188。 張恒豪(2016)。我不需要被修補:障礙、文化與普世人權。取自:https://twstreetcorner.org/2016/09/10/changhenghao-2/。檢索日期:2021年8月17日。 張恒豪、周月清、陳俊賢、陳重安(2020)。誰代表障礙者?障礙者代表的政府參與及其在公民權上的意義。臺灣民主季刊,17(2),95-136。 張珏、李柏翰、溫桂君、張菊惠(2015)。國際人權法與心理健康權。中華心理衛生學刊,28(3),449-468。 張盈堃(2020)。看見障礙者的性權:避免無感也無情的灰色維度。性別平等教育季刊,(90),4-7。 梁美榮(2015)。我國身心障礙者性權之省思--不再緘默與迴避的身心障礙者的性議題。社區發展季刊,149,81-90。 郭惠瑜(2017)。她們不配當媽媽?被遺忘的身心障礙女性家庭照顧者。取自:https://www.twreporter.org/a/opinion-disabled-women-caregiver。檢索日期:2021年8月18日。 郭惠瑜(2020a)。不要干涉我的子宮:還給身心障礙女性生育權。性別平等教育季刊,(90),32-35。 郭惠瑜(2020b)。障礙與性別的交織:探討小兒麻痺女性母職經驗。女學學誌:婦女與性別研究,(46),79-122。 陳婕翎(2019)。節育費減免資格 擬刪身心障礙。取自: https://health.udn.com/health/story/5999/4035189。檢索日期:2022年6月10日。 陳麒文(2018)。身心障礙與性別。臺灣醫學,22(4),422-427。 單芳怡(2021)。脊髓損傷婦女性生活的主觀經驗(未出版碩士論文)。輔仁大學,新北市。 曾淑瑜(2007)。誰的生命不及格-論胚胎基因篩選之倫理爭議與法律問題。科技法學評論,4(1),65-102。 曾鈺婷(2009)。女性肢體障礙者之身體形象、認同與照顧:社會模式之運用與檢視(未出版碩士論文)。國立中正大學,嘉義縣。 黃珮婷(2012)。探討中年小兒麻痺女性的經驗:身體與性別角色的交織(未出版碩士論文)。國立陽明大學,臺北市。 黃筠華、黃琨祥、周佳佩(2021)。懷孕期間及產後的運動建議。家庭醫學與基層醫療,36(5),138-141。 游美惠(2015)。交織性/交錯性。性別平等教育季刊。(71),109-111。 楊松錦(2012)。我的「媽媽」:我的故事、她們的故事、我們的故事(未出版碩士論文)。國立陽明大學,臺北市。 新北市政府社會局(2022)。新北市好孕專車。取自: https://www.sw.ntpc.gov.tw/home.jsp?id=74f9b660304c5e4d。檢索日期:2022年8月13日。 新竹市政府社會處(2022)。新竹市好孕專車車資補助計畫。取自: https://society.hccg.gov.tw/ch/home.jsp?id=10409&parentpath=0,3,23&mcustomize=onemessages_view.jsp&toolsflag=Y&dataserno=202206170001&t=SocietyOnes&mserno=202206140001。檢索日期:2022年8月13日。 監察院(2019)。調查報告(案號:108內調0103)。取自: https://www.cy.gov.tw/CyBsBoxContent.aspx?s=6855。檢索日期:2021年4月30日。 嘉義市政府社會處(2022)。嘉義市111年度「嘉有好孕」車資補貼(孕婦產檢車資補助)。取自:https://social.chiayi.gov.tw/News_Content.aspx?n=3613&s=415855。檢索日期:2022年8月13日。 劉文琪、劉雪娥(2018)。瑜珈運動對孕婦下背疼痛指數、生活品質之影響。運動健康休閒學報,(9),30-40。 衛生福利部(2016)。105年身心障礙者生活狀況及需求調查(第一冊 綜合報告)。臺北市:作者。 衛生福利部(2022)。身心障礙者人數按年齡及類別分。取自:https://dep.mohw.gov.tw/dos/cp-5224-62359-113.html。檢索日期:2022年臺3月22日。 賴俊帆(2018)。臺灣身心障礙需求評估與服務輸送圖像:脈絡中的制度化效果。臺灣社區工作與社區研究學刊,8(2),87-118。 蘇君薇(2018)。2歲男童餓死 20歲媽坦承平時都餵「吃剩的」。取自: https://www.businesstoday.com.tw/article/category/161153/post/201811110006/。檢索日期:2021年4月30日。 | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/86413 | - |
dc.description.abstract | 生育權為基本人權之一,在許多國際人權公約中皆已明文保障,但長期以來障礙女性受不能與不全的刻板印象影響,使得生育權難以實踐,甚至受到侵害,即便我國已將多項國際人權公約國內法化,在歷次國家報告與國際審查中,仍顯示國家少有積極作為,忽視障礙女性生育權利。此外,障礙女性在孕產過程中也將經歷許多阻礙,如缺乏障礙友善環境、生育輔助資源不足、就醫可近性低、缺乏自主權等。作為權利主體,了解臺灣障礙女性生育權實踐的經驗與看法便顯得十分重要。本研究在2021年12月至2022年3月間,對6位於過去10年間有生育經驗之肢體障礙女性進行半結構式深度訪談,了解其生育意向與孕產經驗,再以系統性資料分析方式,彙整我國2009年至2022年之《消除對婦女一切形式歧視公約》(Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women,下稱CEDAW)與《身心障礙者權利公約》(Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities,下稱CRPD)國家報告與平行報告資料,梳理國家在保障障礙女性生育權之具體作為,及非政府組織監督與倡議論述,探討我國肢體障礙女性生育健康及權利保障與實踐情況。 從歷次國家報告中發現,障礙女性生育權最初在CEDAW第2次平行報告中被提及,但在經歷第1次CRPD審查後才被廣泛重視,並且多在健康權、家庭權與教育權中被保障。而雖然我國對生育權之保障略有進步,但仍存在進步空間,比如多半呈現現況而少有長期規劃,而《優生保健法》修法以及提供無障礙之孕產與親職服務與資訊、輔具及人力支持等服務方案改善的進展則較為有限,也是非政府組織持續倡議的方向。 在深度訪談中發現,本次受訪之肢體障礙女性普遍被家中長輩認為無法生育或勝任傳統女性社會角色工作,故不被鼓勵結婚生育,但受訪者認為此為對障礙者之刻板印象,並認為自己具有生育能力,也未消除其生育意願,但仍會因為障礙因素而對生育感到沒把握;當受訪者們發現懷孕時,內心感到驚喜之餘也伴隨憂慮,包含如何應對父母感受、遺傳疾病與妊娠併發症、難尋合適孕產服務等困境,但其周遭支持資源尚算充分,也能從活用網路來補充相關資訊;生產方式則以剖腹產為主,大部分是醫師給予建議後,再由受訪者自行決定生產方式,溝通過程平等並相互尊重;而受訪者中僅有1位自行決定結紮,但也有受訪者提到過去曾被建議接受節、絕育手術;在產檢與生產時則遭遇無障礙環境建置不足的阻礙,部分醫事人員因缺乏應對障礙者懷孕的經驗,所以未必能及時提供協助,而懷孕產生的身體變化,也使其遭遇如移位困難、體力衰退等挑戰;部分受訪者有使用孕產培力資源,但認為部分服務未做出合理調整,故無法完全滿足其需求,並認為應該改善輔具與個人助理等服務方案;而受訪者在經歷孕產後能加強其社會參與,為母則強的感受也使其更重視自身權益,更勇於反抗不合理待遇。 在比較國家、非政府組織與肢體障礙女性之論述後,歸納出肢體障礙女性面臨社會誤解與不友善、缺乏無障礙孕產與育兒資訊與服務、孕產期間運動資源以及專屬孕產補助等困境與未滿足需求,其中前二項需求牽涉對障礙者之歧視,將使其無法平等近用生育服務資源,屬於需迫切保障之權利,並受到非政府組織持續監督,但國家尚無積極改善作為,明顯未履行保障人權之國家義務;運動需求則可促進障礙女性之性與生育健康,屬於能逐步實現之權利;專屬孕產補助在過去尚無非政府組織提出相關意見,國家也較少呈現相關保障作為,但其有助於彌補障礙女性所面臨的結構性歧視,國家應確保提供特定補助項目予障礙者,並持續擴大生育支持服務之提供。 綜合上述,我國肢體障礙女性存在生育意願且能藉此充權,但期間仍遭遇多重挑戰,說明我國在CEDAW與CRPD國內法化後,國家保障肢體障礙女性生育權之義務未完全履行,部分未滿足需求構成歧視需立即改善,針對可逐步實現之服務,國家也應反映現況逐一落實,以完整保障我國肢體障礙女性之生育權。 | zh_TW |
dc.description.abstract | Reproductive rights are fundamental human rights, and they have been explicitly guaranteed in many international human rights conventions. However, women with disabilities (WWD) have been labeled as “incapable” and “incomplete” for a long time, which has made them challenging to fulfill their reproductive rights. Moreover, the rights may even be infringed. Although Taiwan has internalized five international human rights treaties in its domestic legal framework, only a few positive actions and policies have been mentioned in the previous State Reports, indicating the government’s neglect of the reproductive rights of WWD. However, WWD normally experience many obstacles regarding pregnancy and childbirth. As the rights-holding subject of reproductive rights, WWD’s experiences of and views on the practice of reproductive rights in Taiwan are important and deserve exploration. Thus, this study aims to depict the practices of protection and practices regarding the reproductive health and rights of women with physical disabilities (WWPD) in Taiwan. To do so, six semi-structured in-depth interviews with WWPD, who had reproductive experience in the past ten years, were conducted from December 2021 to March 2022. A systematic approach to documentary research, including data collection and analysis, was applied to contextualize the protection and practices regarding reproductive health and rights from the perspectives of government and non-governmental organizations in recent years. All the reports and related textual materials of Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) in previous states parties' reporting procedures from 2009 to 2022 were reviewed. The issues related to reproductive rights of WWD were first mentioned in the CEDAW shadow reports in 2014 and were expressed in broad discussion after CRPD reporting in 2017. Most of them are often mentioned in the previous reports in education, family, and health rights. There is some progress in the institutional protection of the above rights, but State Reports have shown no continuous implementation plans. Moreover, the progress in amending the Genetic Health Law and the support for accessible reproductive health information, assistive devices, and human resources, which have been repeatedly mentioned in previous reports, are relatively limited. The lack of progress on these issues indicates that the protection of the reproductive rights of WWD in Taiwan is not complete yet. Findings of interviews demonstrate that the WWPD were generally considered infertile or lacking the capabilities to fulfill the traditional expectations regarding women’s social roles by their senior relatives, so they were not encouraged to marry and have children. Taking such discouraging attitudes stemming from the stereotypes against WWD, the interviewees still recognize their abilities in pregnancy and want to have children. But, they have still felt uncertainties about pregnancy because of their disabilities. When the interviewees found out that they were pregnant, they felt not only surprised but also worried because of, for instance, their parents’ judgment, hereditary diseases, pregnancy complications, and the difficulties in finding suitable maternity services. They dealt with these worries by searching for information on the internet and receiving sufficient support from their friends and relatives. Following the advice from their doctors and based on their own opinions, most interviewees delivered with cesarean section surgery. The process of discussion was with equal and mutual respect. Only one of the interviewees underwent ligation surgery after pregnancy, and two of them mentioned they were recommended to have sterilization surgery in the past. They commonly experienced obstacles when receiving obstetric examinations and delivery due to the unfriendliness of the environment. Some medical staff lack the experience in dealing with the pregnancy of WWPD, so they may not be able to provide timely assistance. In addition, the changes in the body and physical functions also make them encounter other challenges, such as difficulty in shifting and decline of physical strength. Some empowerment services were not adjusted reasonably, so their needs could not be satisfied sufficiently. They argued that the services related to assistive devices and personal assistant services should be improved so that they can pursue to realize their reproductive rights easily. Finally, experiencing pregnancy and becoming a mother increases their social participation. The feeling of “obtaining strengths as a mother” has made them braver in resisting unreasonable treatments. Above all, WWPD faced obstacles and unmet needs including unfriendliness from society, inadequacy of disability-friendly services related to reproductive health, the lack of subsidies during pregnancy and appropriate sports resources. From the perspective of human rights protection, the material and institutional barriers that are discriminatory and may limit WWPD access to basic reproductive health services should be eliminated as soon as possible. Other unmet needs that are supportive services in fulfilling the state’s obligation to facilitate a friendly environment should also be addressed progressively. Through this study, I have found that WWPD are capable and willing to go through pregnancy. Though CEDAW and CRPD have internalized in Taiwan, they still face many challenges during pregnancy. Therefore, I argue that the government should eliminate the discriminatory situations related to the pregnancy of WWPD and guarantee their rights to access suitable reproductive health services to protect their reproductive rights completely. | en |
dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2023-03-19T23:54:22Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 U0001-1208202216113900.pdf: 6553402 bytes, checksum: 880784dd085b98415d67e234ed38e9fd (MD5) Previous issue date: 2022 | en |
dc.description.tableofcontents | 口試委員會審定書 I 誌謝 II 中文摘要 III Abstract V 目錄 VIII 表目錄 XI 圖目錄 XI 第一章 緒論 1 第一節 研究背景 1 第二節 研究動機 3 第三節 研究目的 4 第二章 文獻探討 5 第一節 生育權之定義與保障依據 5 第二節 障礙女性面臨之生育權壓迫 6 第三節 肢體障礙女性面臨之生育阻礙 13 第四節 研究缺口與我國人權公約對障礙女性生育權保障之關聯 18 第五節 理論啟發 22 第三章 研究方法與程序 28 第一節 深度訪談 28 第一項 研究族群與抽樣方法 28 第二項 訪談題綱 30 第三項 訪談方式與程序 32 第四項 訪談資料之分析方法 32 第二節 我國障礙女性生育權政策發展之系統性資料分析 33 第一項 系統性資料蒐集方法 33 第二項 系統性資料分析方法 48 第三節 研究倫理 48 第四節 研究程序 50 第四章 我國障礙女性生育權在CEDAW與CRPD之論述發展 51 第一節 CEDAW審查中的障礙女性生育權論述 51 第一項 初次國家審查 51 第二項 第2次國家審查 51 第三項 第3次國家審查 53 第四項 第4次國家審查 56 第五項 CEDAW中的障礙女性生育權脈絡發展 58 第二節 CRPD審查中的障礙女性生育權論述 60 第一項 初次國家審查 60 第二項 第2次國家審查 62 第三項 CRPD中的障礙女性生育權脈絡發展 64 第三節 障礙女性生育權在CEDAW與CRPD中的互動與發展 67 第五章 深度訪談結果 75 第一節 生育意向 75 第一項 影響肢體障礙女性生育之因素 75 第二項 發現懷孕 78 第三項 重要他人對自己懷孕的看法 79 第二節 孕產經驗 81 第一項 尋求孕產服務與資訊的管道 81 第二項 懷孕擔憂與產檢經驗 83 第三項 生產方式選擇與歷程 88 第四項 身體變化帶來的不便或身體功能的改變 91 第五項 節育與絕育措施 93 第三節 孕產支持服務經驗與建議 95 第一項 使用生育輔助資源之經驗 95 第二項 經濟與物資支持 97 第三項 人力支持與資訊整合管道 98 第四節 生育賦能 99 第六章 我國肢體障礙女性生育權之再現比較與未滿足需求分析 103 第一節 不同世代孕產經驗之異同 103 第二節 保障生育權義務的實踐原則 105 第三節 生育權再現之比較及保障進度與未滿足需求分析 108 第一項 社會的誤解與不友善 108 第二項 缺乏無障礙之孕產與育兒服務 111 第三項 缺乏無障礙之孕期與產後運動資源 115 第四項 缺乏專屬孕產補助 116 第七章 結論與建議 121 第一節 研究反思 121 第二節 研究結論 122 第三節 研究優勢與限制 124 第四節 未來研究建議 125 參考文獻 127 國內法律 127 國際文書 128 英文文獻 129 中文文獻 137 附錄 143 附錄一、受訪者知情同意書 143 附錄二、國立臺灣大學行為與社會科學研究倫理委員會審查核可證明 148 附錄三、受訪者招募海報 149 | |
dc.language.iso | zh-TW | |
dc.title | 臺灣肢體障礙女性生育健康及權利之保障與實踐 | zh_TW |
dc.title | The Protection and Practices Regarding the Reproductive Health and Rights of Women with Physical Disabilities in Taiwan | en |
dc.type | Thesis | |
dc.date.schoolyear | 110-2 | |
dc.description.degree | 碩士 | |
dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 官晨怡(Chen-I Kuan),郭惠瑜(Hui-Yu Kuo) | |
dc.subject.keyword | 性與生育健康,生育權,肢體障礙女性,身心障礙者權利公約,消除對婦女一切形式歧視公約, | zh_TW |
dc.subject.keyword | sex and reproductive health,reproductive rights,women with physical disabilities,Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities,Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, | en |
dc.relation.page | 149 | |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.6342/NTU202202350 | |
dc.rights.note | 同意授權(全球公開) | |
dc.date.accepted | 2022-08-22 | |
dc.contributor.author-college | 公共衛生學院 | zh_TW |
dc.contributor.author-dept | 健康政策與管理研究所 | zh_TW |
dc.date.embargo-lift | 2025-08-20 | - |
顯示於系所單位: | 健康政策與管理研究所 |
文件中的檔案:
檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
---|---|---|---|
U0001-1208202216113900.pdf 此日期後於網路公開 2025-08-20 | 6.4 MB | Adobe PDF |
系統中的文件,除了特別指名其著作權條款之外,均受到著作權保護,並且保留所有的權利。