Patient choice cesarean delivery: Ethical issues

Current Opinion in Obstetrics and Gynecology

Volumn 20, Issue 2, 2008, Pages 116-119

  Kalish, Robin B ^a   McCullough, Laurrence B ^b   Chervenak, Frank A ^a  

^a WEILL CORNELL MEDICAL COLLEGE   (United States)

^b BAYLOR COLLEGE OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

Autonomy; Cesarean delivery on maternal request; Patient choice cesarean

Indexed keywords

CESAREAN SECTION; DOCTOR PATIENT RELATION; ELECTIVE SURGERY; GOOD CLINICAL PRACTICE; HIGH RISK PATIENT; HUMAN; INFORMED CONSENT; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; MEDICAL ETHICS; OBSTETRIC CARE; OBSTETRIC PATIENT; PATIENT CARE; PATIENT COUNSELING; PATIENT DECISION MAKING; PATIENT INFORMATION; PHYSICIAN; PREGNANT WOMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE; REVIEW; VAGINAL DELIVERY;

CESAREAN SECTION; CHOICE BEHAVIOR; ETHICS, CLINICAL; FEMALE; HUMANS; INFORMED CONSENT; PATIENT ADVOCACY; PATIENT PARTICIPATION; PATIENT RIGHTS; PHYSICIAN-PATIENT RELATIONS; PREGNANCY; PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE; SURGICAL PROCEDURES, ELECTIVE;

EID: 41849096752     PISSN: 1040872X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/GCO.0b013e3282f55df7     Document Type: Review

References (20)

1. National Institutes of Health. NIH State-of-the-Science Conference statement on cesarean delivery on maternal request. NIH Consensus and State-of-the-Science Statements. Bethesda (MD): NIH; 2006. http://consensus.nih. gov/2006/CesareanStatement_Final053106.pdf. [Accessed 3 November 2007]
2. National Institutes of Health. National Institutes of Health state-of-the-science conference statement: Cesarean delivery on maternal request March 27-29, 2006. Obstet Gynecol 2006; 107: 1386-1397. This article documents the NIH consensus statement regarding currently available data on cesarean delivery on maternal request. The panel concluded that there is insufficient evidence to evaluate fully the benefits and risks of cesarean delivery on maternal request compared with planned vaginal delivery and that any decision to perform a cesarean delivery on maternal request should be carefully individualized and consistent with clinical principles.
3. ACOG Committee Opinion. Cesarean delivery on maternal request. Obstet Gynecol 2007; 386:1209-1212.
4. Kalish RB, McCullough LB, Chervenak FA. Is nondirective counseling for patient choice cesarean delivery ethically justified? J Perinat Med 2007; 35:478-480. This paper addresses how physicians should counsel women regarding patient choice cesarean delivery. The importance of directive counseling in response to maternal requests for cesarean delivery is emphasized.
5. Hannah ME, Whyte H, Hannah WJ, et al. Maternal outcomes at 2 years after planned cesarean section versus planned vaginal birth for breech presentation at term: the international randomized Term Breech Trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2004; 191:917-927.
6. Villar J, Valladares E, Wojdyla D, et al. Caesarean delivery rates and pregnancy outcomes: the 2005 WHO global survey on maternal and perinatal health in Latin America. Lancet 2006; 367:1819-1829.
7. Minkoff H, Chervenak FA. Elective primary cesarean delivery. N Engl J Med 2003; 348:946-950.
8. American Medical Association, Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs. Fundamental elements of the patient-physician relationship. http://www.ama-assn. org/apps/pf_new/pf_online?f_n=browse&doc=policyfiles/HnE/E-10.01. HTM&&s_t=&st_p=&nth=1&prev_pol=policyfiles/HnE/E-9.132. HTM&nxt_pol=policyfiles/HnE/E-10.01.HTM&. [Accessed 17 January 2008]
9. Feldman GB, Freiman JA. Prophylactic cesarean section at term? N Eng J Med 1985; 312:1264-1267.
10. Chervenak FA, McCullough LB. An ethically justified algorithm for offering, recommending, and performing cesarean delivery and its application in managed care practice. Obstet Gynecol 1996; 87:302-305.
11. Harer WB Jr. Patient choice cesarean [editorial]. ACOG Clin Rev 2000; 5:15-16.
12. Minkoff H, Powderly KR, Chervenak FA, McCullough LB. Ethical dimensions of primary cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol 2004; 103:387-392.
13. Brett AS, McCullough LB. When patients request specific interventions: Defining the limits of the physician's obligation. N Eng J Med 1986; 315:1347-1351.
14. Faden RR, Beauchamp TL. A history and theory of informed consent. New York: Oxford University Press; 1986.
15. McCullough LB, Chervenak FA. Ethics in obstetrics and gynecology. New York: Oxford University Press; 1994.
16. Kalish RB, McCullough LB, Chervenak FA. Decision-making regarding cesarean delivery. Lancet 2006; 367:883-885. This article addresses the question of when there is clinical uncertainty about the benefits and risks of cesarean delivery, how should obstetricians and patients form their judgments. The authors propose a 'rethinking' regarding cesarean delivery that challenges the idea that all indications for cesarean delivery can be reliably categorized as medically indicated or not.
17. Kalish RB, McCullough L, Gupta M, et al. Intrapartum elective cesarean delivery: a previously unrecognized clinical entity. Obstet Gynecol 2004; 103:1137-1141.
18. Osis MJD, Padua KS, Duarte GA, et al. The opinion of Brazilian women regarding vaginal labor and cesarean section. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2001; 75:S59-S66.
19. Kalish RB, Chervenak FA, McCullough LB. Should we offer elective primary cesarean delivery? No, we should not. In the Hot Seat. Female Patient 2006; 31:45-46.
20. Hankins GDV, Clark SM, Munn MB. Cesarean section on request at 39 weeks: Impact on shoulder dystocia, fetal trauma, neonatal encephalopathy, and intrauterine fetal demise. Semin Perinatol 2006; 30:276-287.