Abstract
Period poverty has led to many initiatives across the world. In some places, period (or menstrual hygiene management [MHM]) products are free and readily found in restaurants, universities and pubs. However, conversations on mensuration management have also led to discussions on sustainability. One ad in a bathroom states, 'why not try swapping (from tampons or pads) to a…carbon lowering menstrual cup?' This begs the question not only how can menstruation management be more sustainable, but also, since it (ostensibly) is not, do females have an ethical obligation to limit, or eliminate, periods for the sake of environmental conservation? This question speaks to deeper themes whereby females are vilified for their bodies (think: blaming the victim in sexual assault; blaming females in the developing world for having 'too many children'; and blaming females for miscarriages related to high-risk behaviours). This paper will first offer the background of the period poverty movement. It will then explore salient themes related to gender, ecology, ethics and health through the lenses of eco-feminism and feminist bioethics. The third task of the paper will be to analyse the implications of environmental ethics on female physical functioning, with specific attention to menstruation: this may be thought of as a case study in the underdeveloped area of eco-feminist bioethics. After describing the ethical and social issues surrounding sustainability and menstrual hygiene management, the paper, fourth, will return to the question initially raised: the ethical obligation to eliminate menstrual periods for the sake of the environment. The paper will claim that (1) females do not have a special obligation for menstrual elimination based on an environmental rationale, but, like all people, have a general ethical obligation to sustainability in all areas of life, including health care choices. (2) Females retain the right for period elimination for any reason, including environmental reasons.