Maternal-Fetal Conflict: A Study of Physician Concerns in Court-Ordered Cesarean Sections
Elkins, Thomas E.
Andersen, H. Frank
Journal of Clinical Ethics. 1990 Winter; 1(4): 316-319.
We conducted a survey of resident and faculty physicians of two residency programs in Michigan...This study suggests that most obstetric physicians concur with the 1987 American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists ethics committee statement that court-ordered intervention should "almost never" be considered and that preterm issues in patient care will not trigger widespread appeal for such intervention. However, the respondents indicated that when faced in clinical settings with rare cases involving grave fetal risk at term gestation without similar maternal risk, they will often give higher priority to respect for fetal life, medical tradition, and beneficence than to maternal autonomy, bodily integrity, and privacy. This approach to decision making should certainly be rigorously critiqued, but need not be prejudged as unreasonable.
Abortion; Alcohol Abuse; Attitudes; Autonomy; Beneficence; Biomedical Technologies; Case Studies; Cesarean Section; Coercion; Consultation; Decision Making; Drugs; Ethics; Evaluation; Evaluation Studies; Faculty; Fetuses; Injuries; Internship and Residency; Judicial Action; Legal Rights; Life; Obstetrics and Gynecology; Paternalism; Patient Care; Physicians; Pregnant Women; Prenatal Injuries; Privacy; Referral and Consultation; Rights; Risk; Risks and Benefits; Residency; Smoking; Survey; Treatment Refusal; Value of Life;
Showing items related by title, author, creator and subject.