Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://hdl.handle.net/2440/73433
Citations
Scopus Web of Science® Altmetric
?
?
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorWilkinson, D.-
dc.date.issued2012-
dc.identifier.citationJournal of Medical Ethics, 2012; 38(7):396-397-
dc.identifier.issn0306-6800-
dc.identifier.issn1473-4257-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/2440/73433-
dc.description.abstractHeuser and colleagues’ survey of obstetricians provides a valuable insight into the current management of severe fetal anomalies in the United States. Their survey reveals two striking features – that counselling for these anomalies is far from neutral, and that there is significant variability between clinicians in their approach to management. In this commentary I outline the reasons to be concerned about both of these. Directiveness in counselling arguably represents a form of paternalism, and the evident variability in practice is likely the result of physician personal values. However, Heuser’s survey may, by shining a light on practice, provide an important step towards a more consistent approach.-
dc.description.statementofresponsibilityDominic Wilkinson-
dc.language.isoen-
dc.publisherBritish Med Journal Publ Group-
dc.rightsCopyright © 2012 by the BMJ Publishing Group Ltd & Institute of Medical Ethics. All rights reserved.-
dc.source.urihttp://dx.doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2012-100542-
dc.subjectHumans-
dc.subjectFetal Diseases-
dc.subjectPrenatal Diagnosis-
dc.subjectAbortion, Induced-
dc.subjectPregnancy-
dc.subjectPhysicians-
dc.subjectFemale-
dc.subjectCongenital Abnormalities-
dc.titleFatal fetal paternalism-
dc.typeJournal article-
dc.identifier.doi10.1136/medethics-2012-100542-
pubs.publication-statusPublished-
Appears in Collections:Aurora harvest 5
Obstetrics and Gynaecology publications

Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.