Obstetricians, Health Attorneys, and Court-Ordered Cesarean Sections

Women's Health Issues

Volumn 17, Issue 2, 2007, Pages 107-114

  Samuels, Terri Ann ^a   Minkoff, Howard ^a   Feldman, Joseph ^b   Awonuga, Awoniyi ^a   Wilson, Tracey E ^b  

^a MAIMONIDES MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^b SUNY DOWNSTATE MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CESAREAN SECTION; CLINICAL PRACTICE; COURT; DECISION MAKING; FEMALE; HUMAN; LAW SUIT; LAWYER; MEDICAL SPECIALIST;

ABORTION, INDUCED; COUNSELING; FEMALE; HUMANS; LEGISLATION, MEDICAL; MALE; OBSTETRICS; PATIENT ADVOCACY; PERSONAL AUTONOMY; PHYSICIAN'S PRACTICE PATTERNS; PREGNANCY; RELIGION AND MEDICINE; TREATMENT REFUSAL; UNITED STATES; WOMEN'S RIGHTS;

EID: 33947687243     PISSN: 10493867     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.whi.2006.12.001     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. ABIM Foundation, American Board of Internal Medicine, ACP-ASIM Foundation, American College of Physicians-American Society of Internal Medicine, and European Federation of Internal Medicine. Medical professionalism in the new millennium: A physician charter. Annals of Internal Medicine 13 (2002) 243-246
2. ACOG Committee on Ethics. ACOG Committee Opinion #321: Maternal decision making, ethics, and the law. Obstetrics and Gynecology 106 (2005) 1127-1137
3. ACOG Committee Opinion. Patient choice in Maternal-Fetal relationship. Ethics in Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2nd ed. (2004), American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Washington, DC 34-36
4. Annas G.J. Protecting the liberty of pregnant patients. N Engl J Med 316 (1987) 1213-1214
5. Emanuel E.J., and Emanuel L.L. Four models of the physician patient relationship. JAMA 267 (1992) 221-226
6. Fishbein M., Bandura A., Triandis H.C., Kanfer F.H., Becker M.H., Middlestadt S.E., et al. Factors influencing behavior and behavior change: Final report-Theorist's workshop. In: Baum A., Revenson T., and Singer J. (Eds). Handbook of health psychology (2001), Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ
7. Gillon R. Ethics needs principles-Four can encompass the rest-And respect for autonomy should be "first among equals". Medical Ethics 29 (2003) 307-312
8. Hill P.C., and Pargament K.I. Advances in the conceptualization and measurement of religion and spirituality. Implications for physical and mental health research. American Psychologist 58 (2003) 64-74
9. In re A.C. 573 A.2d 1235 (D.C. Ct. App. 1990).
10. In re Madyun Fetus, Daily Wash. L. R. 2233 col. 3 (D.C. Super. Ct., Oct. 27, 1986).
11. Int'l Union v. Johnson Controls, Inc., 499 U.S. 197-206 (1991).
12. Kolder V.E., Gallagher J., and Parsons M.T. Court-ordered obstetrical interventions. N Engl J Med 316 (1987) 1192-1196.
13. McFall v. Shimp, 10 Pa. D. & C.3d 90 (C.P. Ct. 1978).
14. Minkoff H., and Paltrow L.M. Melissa Rowland and the rights of pregnant women. Obstetrics and Gynecology 104 (2004) 1234-1236
15. WVHCS-Hospital, Inc. and Baby Doe v. Jane Doe and John Doe, Ct. Com. Pl., Luzerne County, Pennsylvania, Civil Action No. 3-E 2004, Special Injunction Order and Appointment of Guardian, (Judge, M.T. Council Jan. 14, 2004).