Do Differences in the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Positions on the Ethics of Maternal–Fetal Interventions Reflect Subtly Divergent Professional Sensitivities to Pregnant Women and Fetuses?

Author:

Brown Stephen D.1,Truog Robert D.2,Johnson Judith A.3,Ecker Jeffrey L.4

Affiliation:

1. Department of Radiology, Children's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts

2. Division of Critical Care Medicine, Children's Hospital, and Division of Medical Ethics, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts

3. Office of Ethics, Children's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts

4. Vincent Memorial Obstetric Service, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts

Abstract

As therapeutic interventions that are designed for the direct benefit of the fetus have evolved, pediatric specialists along with obstetricians have become increasingly engaged in the management of pregnancies that are complicated by fetal disorders. Do the 2 groups of medical specialists hold differing “world views” on the nature of the maternal–fetal relationship that could have an impact on decision-making? A direct comparison of the positions of the ethics committees of the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists concerning maternal–fetal conflicts and fetal therapy reveals subtle but telling differences. Compared with the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists policy, the American Academy of Pediatrics statement accords somewhat less weight to maternal decision-making and is more tolerant of overriding maternal refusal of interventions that are recommended for fetal benefit. In doing so, it may oblige pregnant patients to assume greater risk and tolerate diminished autonomy. We urge leaders from both disciplines to meet and seek consensus so that a common approach and language can guide treatment of the patients whom we share.

Publisher

American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP)

Subject

Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health

Cited by 24 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3