Rethinking the Definition of Obstetric Violence: Reflections from a Collective and Regional Perspective

Barcelona, July 2025

Authors

• Dr Laura Abojer – Head of the Obstetrics Department at San Isidro Mother and Child Hospital
• Dr Javier De Cicco – Obstetrician specialising in high-risk pregnancies and Head of Emergency Services at San Isidro Mother and Child Hospital
• Ivana Iriarte, Lic. – Certified breastfeeding counsellor and doula at San Isidro Mother and Child Hospital. Licentiate in Communication Sciences.
• Nury Benavides, Lic. – On-call midwife and Coordinator of the Early Childhood Programme (PIM) at San Isidro Mother and Child Hospital

Institution
San Isidro Mother and Child Hospital. Buenos Aires, Argentina.

Introduction

To define is to set boundaries, choose a conceptual framework, and, in a sense, decide what is included and what is left out. In the context of obstetric violence, this act of defining is far from neutral: it entails political, epistemological, and ethical positioning. Arising from the experiences and collective discussions within the IPOV project, the need emerged to reconsider what it means to “define” this phenomenon. This reflection was developed specifically during the midterm meeting held in Tarragona, Spain, where participants from diverse regions and disciplines shared perspectives, concerns and proposals regarding obstetric violence and its many dimensions.

Rather than simply adopting an existing definition, the group proposed a reflective, open and context-sensitive approach to guide future definitions aligned with the project’s framework. The aim was not to reach a fixed, inflexible definition, but to develop critical tools to enable collective thinking rooted in specific territories and lived experiences.

The Multiplicity of Definitions and the Importance of the Process

Firstly, it was acknowledged that there are multiple definitions of obstetric violence, stemming from different disciplines, regions, and legal frameworks. This diversity reflects both the complexity of the phenomenon and the varied realities of women and birthing people. For this reason, it was proposed not to impose a single rigid definition, but to offer five key points of reflection as guidance for thinking about, choosing, or developing situated definitions that are useful and ethically committed.

The Purpose of a Definition: Visibility, Empowerment, Transformation

One of the central purposes of defining obstetric violence is to make visible the voices and experiences of those who have lived through it. It involves denaturalising normalised practices, empowering women, creating tools for institutional transformation and generating spaces for dialogue and reflection. A definition is not merely a theoretical act, but a political and social strategy to challenge hegemonic and authoritarian medical knowledge.

The Need for a Regional and Intersectional Perspective

A key concern expressed by the group was the need to construct definitions informed by local and regional contexts. While the concept of obstetric violence has seen significant development in Latin America, there is also a need to contextualise it in other regions, such as Europe. In this regard, the importance of diverse perspectives—across countries, professions and cultures—was recognised, and a move towards regional definitions was proposed, while maintaining a global rights-based perspective.

The relevance of an intersectional approach was also strongly emphasised: obstetric violence does not affect all individuals in the same way. Factors such as age, race, ethnicity, social class, nationality, migratory status, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity or religion all shape experiences of discrimination and mistreatment.

The Debate on the Continuum of Violence and the Inclusion of the Newborn

One of the more complex discussions revolved around the idea of a continuum of violence. On one hand, obstetric violence was viewed as part of a broader continuum of gender-based violence. On the other, there was debate around whether this continuum should include the newborn—raising a series of ethical and political questions: Should the rights of the baby be considered within the framework of obstetric violence? How can we ensure that such inclusion does not undermine or relativise the autonomy of the woman?

Some participants raised concerns about how discourse around the rights of the newborn can be used to curtail women’s reproductive rights—particularly in debates around abortion or respectful childbirth. However, it was also suggested that developing a concept such as neonatal violence could help to expose other forms of institutional mistreatment without compromising women’s rights.

The Dynamic and Falsifiable Nature of Definitions

It was underlined that any definition must be dynamic and open to revision. The notion of falsifiability—borrowed from the philosophy of science—was used to argue that a definition should be open to questioning, modification, or even rejection if it ceases to be useful, fair or appropriate to its intended purpose. A definition, then, should be a tool—not a dogma.

Political and Legal Challenges

Finally, the political and legal uses of definitions were discussed. If the aim is to influence international bodies or national legislation, the way a definition is formulated becomes crucial. For example, in Uruguay, gender-based violence legislation enabled the inclusion of violence in reproductive processes, thereby creating space to address violence in contexts such as abortion or assisted reproduction.
This illustrates the strategic importance of naming: including certain concepts in definitions can open legal and political pathways, while excluding them may close doors.

Conclusion

Instead of offering a definitive definition, this collective process embraced a reflective, situated and evolving approach. The need to articulate a common core of shared elements was acknowledged—one from which each region, project or movement could develop its own contextualised definition, without losing sight of human rights and the structural transformation of healthcare systems.
To define is to choose, yes—but it is also an act of care, of listening and of commitment. For this reason, this work does not end here. It is only the beginning of a collective process of thinking, political articulation, and transformative action.