[Embryo reduction in twin pregnancy on maternal request: A French practice study].

IF 0.6 4区 医学 Q4 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY
Cécile Pasteau, Karima Bettahar, Anne-Sophie Weingertner, Philippe Bouhanna, Nicolas Sananès
{"title":"[Embryo reduction in twin pregnancy on maternal request: A French practice study].","authors":"Cécile Pasteau, Karima Bettahar, Anne-Sophie Weingertner, Philippe Bouhanna, Nicolas Sananès","doi":"10.1016/j.gofs.2024.09.006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>In France, embryo reduction is controversial in twin pregnancy, especially when there is no underlying pathology. The objective of this study was to establish the status of this practice in France and to depict the ethical issues around this problematic.</p><p><strong>Study design: </strong>A questionnaire drafted by Maternal and Fetal Medicine physicians and family planning teams of the University Hospital from Strasbourg was distributed to the 48 French Multidisciplinary Prenatal Diagnosis Centers, among which 28 answered (58,3%).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Embryo reduction in twin pregnancy on maternal request has already challenged 71% of the centers; 29% have performed such a reduction. The overall position of the centers to these requests is negative (3.1/10), with very mixed levels of in-team agreement. The main arguments against this practice are that twin pregnancy is not a pathology, that embryo reduction exposes to the risk of loosing the entire pregnancy, the feeling of being held hostage with the alternative of abortion of the whole pregnancy, and the lack of legal framing. On the contrary, the arguments in favor of the reduction are: that the reduction can avoid an abortion, that this type of reduction can be related to a partial abortion, that it responds to women's rights and that mental health is an integral part of women's health.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>There is no consensus about how to respond to patients requesting for embryo reduction in twin pregnancy. However, the majority of Centers have been confronted with it and it would be necessary to open the debate on this problem and the ethical questions it raises.</p>","PeriodicalId":56056,"journal":{"name":"Gynecologie Obstetrique Fertilite & Senologie","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Gynecologie Obstetrique Fertilite & Senologie","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gofs.2024.09.006","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: In France, embryo reduction is controversial in twin pregnancy, especially when there is no underlying pathology. The objective of this study was to establish the status of this practice in France and to depict the ethical issues around this problematic.

Study design: A questionnaire drafted by Maternal and Fetal Medicine physicians and family planning teams of the University Hospital from Strasbourg was distributed to the 48 French Multidisciplinary Prenatal Diagnosis Centers, among which 28 answered (58,3%).

Results: Embryo reduction in twin pregnancy on maternal request has already challenged 71% of the centers; 29% have performed such a reduction. The overall position of the centers to these requests is negative (3.1/10), with very mixed levels of in-team agreement. The main arguments against this practice are that twin pregnancy is not a pathology, that embryo reduction exposes to the risk of loosing the entire pregnancy, the feeling of being held hostage with the alternative of abortion of the whole pregnancy, and the lack of legal framing. On the contrary, the arguments in favor of the reduction are: that the reduction can avoid an abortion, that this type of reduction can be related to a partial abortion, that it responds to women's rights and that mental health is an integral part of women's health.

Conclusion: There is no consensus about how to respond to patients requesting for embryo reduction in twin pregnancy. However, the majority of Centers have been confronted with it and it would be necessary to open the debate on this problem and the ethical questions it raises.

[双胎妊娠中应产妇要求减少胚胎数量:法国的一项实践研究]。
简介在法国,双胎妊娠中的胚胎缩减术备受争议,尤其是在没有潜在病变的情况下。这项研究的目的是确定这种做法在法国的现状,并描述围绕这一问题的伦理问题:研究设计:斯特拉斯堡大学医院的母胎医学医生和计划生育小组起草了一份调查问卷,分发给法国的 48 家多学科产前诊断中心,其中 28 家(58.3%)作了答复:结果:71%的产前诊断中心已对应孕产妇要求进行双胎妊娠胚胎减容提出质疑;29%的产前诊断中心已进行过胚胎减容。各中心对这些要求的总体立场是否定的(3.1/10),团队内部意见不一。反对这种做法的主要理由是:双胎妊娠不是一种病理现象;胚胎减少术会带来失去整个妊娠的风险;如果选择流产整个妊娠,会有一种被挟持的感觉;以及缺乏法律框架。相反,支持减少胚胎数量的论点是:减少胚胎数量可以避免流产,减少胚胎数量可以与部分流产相联系,减少胚胎数量是对妇女权利的回应,心理健康是妇女健康不可分割的一部分:对于如何应对双胎妊娠患者的胚胎减容要求,目前还没有达成共识。然而,大多数中心都遇到过这种情况,因此有必要就这一问题及其引发的伦理问题展开讨论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Gynecologie Obstetrique Fertilite & Senologie
Gynecologie Obstetrique Fertilite & Senologie Medicine-Obstetrics and Gynecology
CiteScore
1.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
170
期刊介绍: Gynécologie Obstétrique Fertilité & Sénologie est un mensuel scientifique d''information et de formation destiné aux gynécologues, aux obstétriciens, aux sénologues et aux biologistes de la reproduction. La revue, dans ses éditoriaux, articles originaux, mises au point, lettres à la rédaction et autres rubriques, donne une information actualisée ayant trait à l''obstétrique et à la gynécologie et aux différentes spécialités développées à partir de ces deux pôles : médecine de la reproduction, médecine maternelle et fœtale, périnatalité, endocrinologie, chirurgie gynécologique, cancérologie pelvienne, sénologie, sexualité, psychosomatique…
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信