That is a moral question and not valid to be brought into the equation when analyzing results. Indigent is not a moral position even though some authors would like to subtly use it as one - it is a position defined by economic situation.
Millie, your query, I think, is exactly the one that the authors want you to make
Sometimes I assume I am communicating clearly when it becomes obvious I have not. I should have given background.
I have been aware for a long time that big ticket items can be made readily available for indigent people (of whom women and children are the most fragile and vulnerable) while simple things that could make them not need intensive interventive measures are denied them. For example a kidney transplant may be possible but a diet that contributes to health OR simple blood pressure screenings and drugs for hypertension are not available in some cases for some people.
This is something the World Health Org has tried with limited success to address, as have other groups.
So when I read this, I was wondering if access to simple antibiotics were out of the reach of women in their villages due to perhaps them living in a remote area or due to politics or due to big pharna, or some combination thereof.
Sorry I didnt make that more clear.