Setting the political agenda to tackle health inequity in Norway

The WHO European Office for Investment for Health and Development, Venice, Italy of the WHO Regional Office for Europe is organizing national policy-learning case studies in an effort to support the advancement of policy-relevant knowledge on tackling the social determinants of health and health inequity in the WHO European Region. Norway is one of the first three case studies to be carried out. This report presents the Norwegian experience in implementing strategies to reduce socially determined health inequity and highlights the key lessons learned from this process. It describes how a series of factors and action taken over a period of time came together to create a window of opportunity that enabled the introduction of a comprehensive, intersectoral policy to tackle the social gradient on health. It seeks to provide a tool that allows reflection on progress to date and options for the future, and to shed light on critical areas of learning that can be useful to and adapted by other countries in advancing their own national policies, strategies and capacity to reduce socially determined health inequity.

[Eugenic indication for abortion--a historical background]. / Eugenisk indikasjon for abort--en historisk oversikt.

BACKGROUND: Modern discussions on fetal diagnostics and abortion frequently leave the impression that the eugenic clause in the Norwegian abortion act is a heritage from the eugenics movement in the 1930s. However, although much has been written on this, few have systematically pursued the historical development of the eugenic clause. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The article describes the development of Norwegian abortion legislation in general, and the eugenic clause in particular, from the discussions in the 1930s, through the Nazi abortion law during the German occupation (which is relatively unknown in the historiographic literature), and to the legislation that was finally passed after the war. The sources are primarily official documents (committee reports, drafts for legislation, debates in parliament) as well as discussions in the Journal of the Norwegian Medical Association. Various proposals are discussed according to two criteria: a) the role hereditary arguments played in the formulation of a eugenic clause; and b) the extent to which such a clause is justified by social, as opposed to individual, concerns. RESULTS AND INTERPRETATION: Although social concerns every now and then figure in justifications for the eugenic clause, the lack of eugenic argumentation in Norwegian abortion debates until 1960 is striking. There are traces of a clear eugenic or racial hygienic approach in the 1930s, but this thinking was left dead by the abortion act instituted by the Nazi regime.