Introducción: La Ley 21.030 permite la objeción de conciencia al personal de salud al interior del pabellón y a las instituciones privadas. Ha sido considerada conflicto de intereses no monetario, al anteponer los valores personales, afectando el cumplimiento del deber profesional. Objetivos: Establecer la prevalencia de funcionarios/as objetores/as en los hospitales de la red pública del país y caracterizarles según edad, género y nacionalidad. Método: Estudio cuantitativo, analítico y transversal. Se utilizaron medidas de tendencia central y dispersión. Para medir la asociación entre variables sociodemográficas, profesión y causal objetada, se utilizaron las pruebas de χ 2 , exacta de Fisher y de Kruskal-Wallis. Resultados: En 57 hospitales, se observa una mayor frecuencia de objetores en causal 3. En 443 objetores, la mediana de edad fue de 43 años, el 64,8% mujeres y el 87,4% de nacionalidad chilena. En las zonas centro y sur del país se concentra la mayor proporción de hospitales con más del 50% de objetores. Conclusiones: La dificultad para obtener información impide conocer cabalmente la magnitud de la objeción de conciencia. Resulta preocupante la alta prevalencia de objetores, específicamente en la causal violación. La objeción no puede operar como barrera que vulnere los derechos y la dignidad de las mujeres.

IntroductionAfter decades of absolute criminalization, on September 14, 2017, Chile decriminalized voluntary termination of pregnancy (VTP) when there is a life risk to the pregnant woman, lethal incompatibility of the embryo or fetus of genetic or chromosomal nature, and pregnancy due to rape. The implementation of the law reveals multiple barriers hindering access to the services provided by the law.ObjectivesTo identify and analyze, using the Tanahashi Model, the main barriers to the implementation of law 21,030 in public health institutions. This article contributes to the follow-up of this public policy, making visible the obstacles that violate women's rights of women to have dignified access to abortion and that affect the quality of health care in Chile.Material and methodQualitative design, following the postpositivist paradigm. The sample consisted of relevant actors directly related to pregnancy termination. Snowball sampling and semi-structured interviews were used. Grounded theory was used through inductive coding, originating categories regrouped into meta-categories following Tanahashi's model. The rigor criteria of transferability, dependability, credibility, authenticity, and epistemological theoretical adequacy were used. The identity of the participants and the confidentiality of the information were protected.ResultsFrom January 2021 to October 2022, 62 interviews were conducted with 20 members of the psychosocial support team; 18 managers; 17 members of the biomedical health team; 4 participants from of civil society, and three women users. The main obstacles correspond to availability barriers, accessibility barriers, acceptability barriers, contact barriers, and effectiveness barriers.ConclusionsBarriers to access abortion under three grounds violate the exercise of women's sexual and reproductive rights. It is urgent to carry out actions of control and follow-up of this public policy to the corresponding entities.

IntroductionAfter three decades of the absolute prohibition of abortion, Chile enacted Law 21,030, which decriminalizes voluntary pregnancy termination when the person is at vital risk, when the embryo or fetus suffers from a congenital or genetic lethal pathology, and in pregnancy due to rape. The law incorporates conscientious objection as a broad right at the individual and institutional levels.ObjectivesThe aim of the study was to explore the exercise of conscientious objection in public health institutions, describing and analyzing its consequences and proposals to prevent it from operating as structural violence.Materials and methodsThis study uses a qualitative, post-positivist design. At the national level, according to the chain technique, people who were identified as key actors due to their direct participation in implementing the law were included. Grounded theory was used to analyze the information obtained through a semi-structured interview. The methodological rigor criteria of transferability or applicability, dependability, credibility, auditability, and theoretical-methodological adequacy were met.ResultsData from 17 physicians, 5 midwives, 6 psychologists, 8 social workers, 2 nursing technicians, and 1 lawyer are included. From an inductive process through open coding, conscientious objection as structural violence and strategies to minimize the impact of objection emerge as meta-categories. The first meta-category emerges from the barriers linked to the implementation of the law, the infringement of the rights of the pregnant person, and pseudo conscientious objection, affecting timely and effective access to pregnancy termination. The second meta-category emerges as a response from the participants, proposing strategies to prevent conscientious objection from operating as structural violence.ConclusionConscientious objection acts as structural violence by infringing the exercise of sexual and reproductive rights. The State must fulfill its role as guarantor in implementing public policies, preventing conscientious objection from becoming hegemonic and institutionalized violence.

La Ley 21.030 de Chile despenalizó la interrupción voluntaria del embarazo en tres causales (riesgo de vida de la mujer, malformación de carácter letal del feto y embarazo producto de violación), e introdujo por primera vez en la legislación del país, el derecho a la objeción de conciencia de los equipos clínicos que participan directamente de los procedimientos de vaciamiento uterino de las gestaciones en que concurre alguna de las tres situaciones consideradas en la Ley. Esta Ley tuvo un amplio debate social y legislativo, y a un año de su implementación podemos observar con preocupación, que la objeción de conciencia de los equipos clínicos se alza como la principal barrera de acceso a las prestaciones de salud a las cuales tienen derechos las mujeres en estas situaciones en Chile.1,2 El presente artículo espera aportar al debate nacional sobre el rol de los profesionales de salud ante el nuevo escenario jurídico-sanitario, donde el equilibrio entre las libertades personales de los profesionales y el legítimo derecho de las mujeres a poder acceder a los servicios definidos en la Ley 21.030 estén en el centro de la discusión, y se expresan como una oportunidad o definitivamente una amenaza al estado de derecho, es decir a nuestra democracia