The professional responsibility model of obstetrical ethics: Avoiding the perils of clashing rights

American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology

Volumn 205, Issue 4, 2011, Pages 315.e1-315.e5

  Chervenak, Frank A ^a   McCullough, Laurence B ^b   Brent, Robert L ^c,d  

^a WEILL CORNELL MEDICAL COLLEGE   (United States)

^b BAYLOR COLLEGE OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^c NEMOURS ALFRED I DUPONT HOSPITAL FOR CHILDREN   (United States)

^d THOMAS JEFFERSON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Beneficence; Ethical reductionism; Fetus as a patient; Patients' rights; Professional responsibility; Respect for autonomy

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CLINICAL DECISION MAKING; HUMAN; MEDICAL ETHICS; OBSTETRIC PROCEDURE; PATHOLOGICAL ANATOMY; PATHOPHYSIOLOGY; PHYSICIAN; PREGNANT WOMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE; PROFESSIONALISM; WOMEN'S RIGHTS; ETHICS; HUMAN RIGHTS; LEGAL LIABILITY; OBSTETRICS; THEORETICAL MODEL;

HUMAN RIGHTS; LIABILITY, LEGAL; MODELS, THEORETICAL; OBSTETRICS;

EID: 84855180571     PISSN: 00029378     EISSN: 10976868     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2011.06.006     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Brent RL. When does human life begin? A biologist's perspective. In: Kurjak A, Chervenak FA, eds. Controversies on the beginning of human life. New Dehli: Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (Ltd); 2008:47-62.
2. Pinkerton JV, Finnerty JJ. Resolving the clinical and ethical dilemma involved in fetal-maternal conflicts. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1996;175: 289-95. (Pubitemid 26390983)
3. Chervenak FA, McCullough LB. An ethically justified practical approach to offering, recommending, performing, and referring for induced abortion and feticide. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2009;201:560.e1-6.
4. Chervenak FA, McCullough LB. Professional integrity, respect for autonomy, and the selfregulation of reproductive endocrinology. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2009;201:3-4.
5. McCullough LB, Chervenak FA. A critical analysis of the concept and discourse of 'unborn child'. Am J Bioeth 2008;8:34-9.
6. Engel G. A unified concept of health and disease. IRE Trans Med Electronics 2009;10.1109/IRET-ME.1960.5008004. (Originally appeared in Persp Biol Med 1960;13:48-57).
7. Engel G. The need for a new medical model: a challenge for biomedicine. Science 1977; 196:129-36. (Reproduced in Hol Med 1989;4: 37-53). (Pubitemid 8067676)
8. Engel G. The clinical application of the biopsychosocial model. Am J Psychiatry 1980; 137:535-44. (Pubitemid 10107437)
9. Engel G. The biopsychosocial model and medical education. New Engl J Med 1982;306: 802-5.
10. Fan R. The discourses of Confucian medical ethics. In: Baker RB, McCullough LB, eds. The Cambridge world history of medical ethics. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2009: 195-201.
11. Porter R. The greatest benefit to mankind: a medical history of humanity. New York: W.W. Norton; 1998.
12. Zucker A. Moral monads and ethical reductionism. J Religious Ethics 1984;12:116-22.
13. Johnson LSM. Abortion: II, contemporary ethical and legal aspects: A. ethical perspectives. In: Post SG, ed. Encyclopedia of bioethics. New York: Macmillan References USA; 2004:7-18.
14. Brett AS, McCullough LB. When patients request specific interventions: defining the limits of the physician's obligation. N Engl J Med 1986;315:1347-51. (Pubitemid 17030414)
15. Chervenak FA, McCullough LB, Brent RL. The perils of the imperfect expectation of the perfect baby. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2010;203: 101.e1-5.
16. Zoloth L. Abortion: III, religious traditions: a Jewish perspective. In: Post SG, ed. Encyclopedia of bioethics. New York: Macmillan References USA; 2004:28-31.
17. Cahill LS. Abortion: III, religious traditions: B, Roman Catholic perspectives. In: Post SG, ed. Encyclopedia of bioethics. New York: Macmillan References USA; 2004:31-5.
18. Harrison BW. Abortion: III, religious traditions: C, Protestant perspectives. In: Post SG, ed. Encyclopedia of bioethics. New York: Macmillan References USA; 2004:35-9.
19. Bakar O. Abortion: III. religious perspectives: D, Islamic perspectives. In: Post SG, ed. Encyclopedia of bioethics. New York: Macmillan References USA; 2004:39-43.
20. Cole-Turner R. Embryo and fetus: IV, religious perspectives. In: Post SG, ed. Encyclopedia of Bioethics. New York: Macmillan References USA; 2004:732-40.
21. McCullough LB, Chervenak FA. Ethics in obstetrics and gynecology. New York: Oxford University Press; 1994.
22. Annas GJ. Protecting the liberty of pregnant patients. N Engl J Med 1988;316:1213-4. (Pubitemid 17069957)
23. Lyerly AD, Little MO. Toward an ethically responsible approach to vaginal birth after cesarean. Semin Perinatol 2010;34:337-44.
24. Minkoff H, Paltrow L. Obstetricians and the rights of pregnant women. Womens Health (Lond Engl) 2007;3:315-9. (Pubitemid 46773831)
25. Minkoff H. NIH vaginal birth after cesarean: new insights. National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Conference, March 10-13, 2010. Available at: http://videocast.nih.gov/summary.asp?Live-8408. Accessed April 11, 2011.
26. Högberg U, Lynöe N, Wulff M. Cesarean by choice? Empirical study of public attitudes. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2008;87:1301-8.
27. Buckley S. Reclaiming every woman's birthright. Midwifery Today Int Midwife 2010; 94:40-1.
28. Newnham H. Mother v fetus: who wins? Aust J Midwifery 2003;16:23-6.
29. McCullough LB. The ethical concept of medicine as a profession: its origins in modern medical ethics and implications for physicians. In: Kenny N, Shelton W, eds. Lost virtue: professional character development in medical education. New York: Elsevier; 2006:17-27. (Pubitemid 44691695)
30. Chervenak FA, McCullough LB. The moral foundation of medical leadership: the professional virtues of the physician as fiduciary of the patient. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2001; 184:875-9.
31. Beauchamp TL, Childress JF. Principles of biomedical ethics, 6th ed. New York: Oxford University Press; 2009.
32. Schneewind JB. Invention of autonomy: a history of modern moral philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1998.