Fatal fetal paternalism

Simple item page
dc.contributor.authorWilkinson, D.
dc.date.issued2012
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.identifier.citationJournal of Medical Ethics, 2012; 38(7):396-397
dc.identifier.doi10.1136/medethics-2012-100542
dc.identifier.issn0306-6800
dc.identifier.issn1473-4257
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/2440/73433
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.urihttps://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
pubs.publication-statusPublished

Files

Collections

Obstetrics and Gynaecology publications