Parental hope confronting scientific uncertainty: A test of ethics in maternal-fetal surgery for spina bifida

Clinical Obstetrics and Gynecology

Volumn 48, Issue 3, 2005, Pages 595-607

  Bliton, Mark J ^a  

^a VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ALTERNATIVE MEDICINE; ATTITUDE; CONFERENCE PAPER; FEMALE; FETUS; FETUS SURGERY; HUMAN; MEDICAL ETHICS; MENINGOMYELOCELE; PRENATAL DIAGNOSIS; SPINA BIFIDA;

ETHICS, MEDICAL; FETAL VIABILITY; FETUS; HUMANS; PARENTS; PERSONAL AUTONOMY; PRENATAL CARE; PRENATAL DIAGNOSIS; SPINAL DYSRAPHISM;

EID: 23644445352     PISSN: 00099201     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/01.grf.0000169660.80698.a8     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (28)

1. Howe EG. Ethical issue in fetal surgery. Semin Perinatol. 2003;27:446-457.
2. Zaner RM. Integrity and vulnerability in clinical medicine: the dialectic of appeal and response. In: Kemp P, Rendtorff J, Johnsen NM, eds. Bioethics and Biolaw, Vol II: Four Ethical Principles, Second International Conference on Bioethics and Biolaw in Nature and Culture, Copenhagen, Denmark (April, 1998). Copenhagen: Rhodos International Science and Art Publishers and Centre for Ethics and Law; 2000:123-140.
3. Management of Myelomeningocele Study (MOMS). A Randomized Trial of Prenatal versus Postnatal Repair of Myelomeningocele, Protocol. The National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Fetal Surgery Units Group; 2003.
4. Jonsen AR. The ethics of fetal surgery. In: Milunsky A, Annas GJ, eds. Genetics and the Law III. New York: Plenum Press; 1985:365-368.
5. Marcel G. Sketch of a phenomenology and a metaphysic of hope. In: Craufurd E, trans. Homo Viator: Introduction to a Metaphysic of Hope. Chicago: Henry Regerny Co; 1951:29-67.
6. Snyder CR, Harris C, Anderson JR, et al. The will and the ways: development and validation of an individual-differences measure of hope. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1991;60:570-585.
7. Kirplani HM, Parkin PC, Willan AR, et al. Quality of life in spina bifida: importance of parental hope. Arch Dis Child. 2000;83:293-297.
8. Larson E. Refraining the meaning of disability to families: the embrace of paradox. Soc Sci Med. 1998;47:865-875.
9. Zaner RM. Ethics and the Clinical Encounter. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall; 1988.
10. Bliton MJ, Finder SG. Strange, but not stranger: the peculiar visage of philosophy in clinical ethics consultation. Hum Stud. 1999;22:69-97.
11. Blition MJ, Zaner RM. Over the cutting edge: how ethics consultation illuminates the moral complexity of open-uterine fetal repair of spina bifida and patients' decision making. J Clin Ethics. 2001;12:346-360.
12. Bliton MJ. Ethics: "life before birth" and moral complexity in maternal-fetal surgery for spina bifida. Clin Perinatol. 2003;30:449-464.
13. Bliton MJ. Imagining a fetus: insights from talking with pregnant women about their decision to undergo open-uterine fetal surgery. In: Toombs SK, ed. Handbook of Phenomenology and Medicine. (Vol 68: in the Philosophy and Medicine Series.) Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Press; 2001: 393-415.
14. Roberts CD, Stough LM, Parrish LH. The role of genetic counseling in the elective termination of pregnancies involving fetuses with disabilities. J Spec Educ. 2002;36:48-55.
15. Petchesky RP. Foetal images: the power of visual culture in the politics of reproduction. In: Stanworth M, ed. Reproductive Technologies: Gender, Motherhood and Medicine. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press; 1987:57-80.
16. Duden B. Disembodying Women: Perspectives on Pregnancy and the Unborn. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 1993.
17. Gregg R. Pregnancy in a High-Tech Age: Paradoxes of Choice. New York and London: New York University Press; 1995.
18. Sandelowski M. Separate, but less equal: Fetal ultrasonography and the transformation of expectant mother/fatherhood. Gend Soc. 1994;8:230-245.
19. Rapp R. Real-time fetus: the role of the sonogram in the age of monitored reproduction. In: Downey GL, Dumit J, ed. Cyborgs and Citadels: Anthropological Interventions in Emerging Sciences and Technologies. Santa Fe: School of American Research Press; 1997:31-48.
20. Morgan LM. Fetal relationality in feminist philosophy: an anthropological critique. Hypatia. 1996;11:47-70.
21. Bentovim A. Emotional disturbances of handicapped pre-school children and their families-attitudes to the child. BMJ. 1972;3:579-581.
22. Manchester D, Clewell W, Manco-Johnson M, et al. Management of pregnancies with suspected fetal anomalies: clinical experience and ethical issues. In: Nimrod C, Griener G, eds. Biomedical Ethics and Fetal Therapy. Waterloo, CA: Wilfrid Laurier University Press; 1988:65-79.
23. Cragan JD, Khoury MJ. Effect of prenatal diagnosis on epidemiologic studies of birth defects. Epidemiology. 2000;11:695-699.
24. Cragan JD, Roberts HE, Edmonds LD, et al. Surveillance for anencephaly and spina bifida and the impact of prenatal diagnosis: United States 1985-1994 MMWR CDC Surveill Summ. 1995;44:1-13.
25. Press N, Browner CH, Tran D, et al. Provisional normalcy and "perfect babies": pregnant women's attitudes toward disability in the context of prenatal testing. In: Franklin S, Ragoné H, eds. Reproducing Reproduction: Kinship, Power, and Technological Innovation. Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania Press; 1998:46-65.
26. Freeman JM. Changing ethical issues in the treatment of spina bifida: a personal odyssey. Ment Retard Dev Disabil Res Rev. 1998;4:302-307.
27. Schutz A. "Choosing among projects of action." In: Natanson M, ed. The Problem of Social Reality, Vol 1, Alfred Schutz: Collected Papers. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff; 1967: 67-96.
28. US Department of Health and Human Services. United States Government Code of Federal Regulations (CFR): Title 45 Part 46 Subpart B at §46.204 a-e.