Cesarean delivery on maternal request: can the ethical problem be solved by the principlist approach?
BMC Medical Ethics 9 (1):11- (2008)
|Abstract||In this article, we use the principlist approach to identify, analyse and attempt to solve the ethical problem raised by a pregnant woman's request for cesarean delivery in absence of medical indications.We use two different types of premises: factual (facts about cesarean delivery and specifically attitudes of obstetricians as derived from the EUROBS European study) and value premises (principles of beneficence and non-maleficence, respect for autonomy and justice).Beneficence/non-maleficence entails physicians' responsibility to minimise harms and maximise benefits. Avoiding its inherent risks makes a prima facie case against cesarean section without medical indication. However, as vaginal delivery can have unintended consequences, there is a need to balance the somewhat dissimilar risks and benefits. The principle of autonomy poses a challenge in case of disagreement between the pregnant woman and the physician. Improved communication aimed to enable better informed choice may overcome some instances of disagreement. The principle of justice prohibits unfair discrimination, and broadly favours optimising resource utilisation.Available evidence supports vaginal birth in uncomplicated term pregnancies as the standard of care. The principlist approach offered a useful framework for ethical analysis of cesarean delivery on maternal request, identified the rights and duties of those involved, and helped reach a conclusion, although conflict at the individual level may remain challenging|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Veronique Bergeron (2007). The Ethics of Cesarean Section on Maternal Request: A Feminist Critique of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists' Position on Patient-Choice Surgery. Bioethics 21 (9):478–487.
Martha Sañudo & Inmaculada De Melo-Martín (2009). Monterrey, C-Section Capital of Mexico: Examining the Ethical Dimensions. International Journal of Feminist Approaches to Bioethics 2 (1):148 - 164.
Sylvia Burrow (2012). On The Cutting Edge: Ethical Responsiveness to Cesarean Section Rates. American Journal of Bioethics 12 (7):44-52.
Rebecca Kukla, Miriam Kuppermann, Margaret Little, Anne Drapkin Lyerly, Lisa M. Mitchell, Elizabeth M. Armstrong & Lisa Harris (2009). Finding Autonomy in Birth. Bioethics 23 (1):1-8.
Jennifer A. Parks (1999). Ethical Androcentrism and Maternal Substance Addiction. International Journal of Applied Philosophy 13 (2):165-175.
Donna L. Dickenson (ed.) (2002). Ethical Issues in Maternal-Fetal Medicine. Cambridge University Press.
Hilary Greaves (2007). On the Everettian Epistemic Problem. Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 38 (1):120-152.
Frank A. Chervenak & Laurence B. McCullough (2012). The Professional Responsibility Model of Respect for Autonomy in Decision Making About Cesarean Delivery. American Journal of Bioethics 12 (7):1 - 2.
Cheng-Hung Tsai (2006). Can, or Should, Dummett Solve the Delivery Problem? Auslegung 28 (1):21-43.
V. Gopichandran & S. K. Chetlapalli (2012). Conditional Cash Transfer to Promote Institutional Deliveries in India: Toward a Sustainable Ethical Model to Achieve MDG 5A. Public Health Ethics 5 (2):173-180.
Bernice L. Hausman (2006). Contamination and Contagion: Environmental Toxins, HIV/AIDS, and the Problem of the Maternal Body. Hypatia 21 (1):137-156.
Nicholas Maxwell (2009). From Knowledge to Wisdom. In David Cayley (ed.), Ideas on the Nature of Science. Goose Lane Editions.
Alison Bailey (1995). Mothering, Diversity and Peace: Comments on Sara Ruddick's Feminist Maternal Peace Politics. Journal of Social Philosophy 26 (1):162-182.
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
Added to index2010-09-13
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?