scholarly journals Maternal autonomy and the rights of the unborn child: a necessary discussion

2021 ◽  
Vol 67 (9) ◽  
pp. 1338-1341
Author(s):  
Fábio Roberto Cabar ◽  
Gabriela Aparecida Marson Binotti
ESMO Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (6) ◽  
pp. e000956
Author(s):  
Alma Linkeviciute ◽  
Barbara Buonomo ◽  
Nicola Fazio ◽  
Francesca Spada ◽  
Fedro A Peccatori

Physicians are increasingly open to discussing and supporting pregnancy after cancer treatment. However, counselling patients who are seeking pregnancy despite advanced oncological disease and/or uncertain prognosis is still challenging. Two paradigmatic cases are presented and analysed to illustrate the ethical uneasiness faced by treating physicians when seriously ill patients seek fertility preservation and/or pregnancy. Review of ethical issues is built around the four principles of biomedical ethics. Respect for patients autonomy in relation to managing realistic expectations and avoiding giving patients false hopes opens the analysis. It is followed by considering fair allocation of resources and meaningful distinction between protecting patients from harm and contributing to their welfare. Responsibilities towards the unborn child are discussed in a light of maternal and fetal interdependency. Respecting personal autonomy requires abstaining from controlling inferences to the individual patient’s choices, but it does not mean that patients should be left on their own to pick and choose their disease management approaches without advice and guidance from healthcare professionals. Physicians should reason evaluating the potential harms and checking if benefits will outweigh the risks and if costs will produce the best overall results. Responsibilities towards the unborn child can be managed by balancing the respect for maternal autonomy and beneficence for pregnant woman and her fetus. The oncologist cannot determine how patients should view their disease but with empathy and compassion can help them understand the logical rationale behind clinical advice.


1973 ◽  
Vol 18 (5) ◽  
pp. 244-244
Author(s):  
ANTHONY DAVIDS
Keyword(s):  

2000 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 83-90 ◽  
Author(s):  
Harold B. Pinkofsky
Keyword(s):  

1997 ◽  
Vol 23 (2-3) ◽  
pp. 251-289
Author(s):  
Margaret G. Farrell

The result ERISA compels us to reach means that the Corcorans [who lost their unborn child allegedly as a result of United Healthcare’s negligent determination that hospitalization was not medically necessary] have no remedy, state or federal, for what may have been a serious mistake. This is troubling....In the words of its sponsor, Senator Jacob Javits, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) was enacted in 1974 “to maintain the voluntary growth of private [pension and employee benefit] plans while at the same time making needed structural reforms in such areas as vesting, funding, termination, etc. so as to safeguard workers against loss of their earned or anticipated benefits....” Ironically, one of ERISA’s provisions—its indeterminate provision for the preemption of state law—has probably created more uncertainty about the adequacy and security of health care benefits than any other piece of legislation. Neither ERISA nor any other federal statute comprehensively regulates the content of employer provided health care plans, including benefits provided through managed care organizations (MCOs).


2011 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 589-592
Author(s):  
Susan Yoshihara ◽  
Keyword(s):  

Author(s):  
J. A. Fraser Roberts
Keyword(s):  

2016 ◽  
Vol 48 (3) ◽  
pp. 276-284 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shela Akbar Ali Hirani ◽  
Joanne Olson

JAMA ◽  
1907 ◽  
Vol XLVIII (17) ◽  
pp. 1418
Author(s):  
J. W. BALLANTYNE
Keyword(s):  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document