Management of Obstetric Emergencies: Hospital Best Practices for Protecting Patients and Physicians.

IF 0.7 4区 社会学 Q3 LAW
American Journal of Law & Medicine Pub Date : 2026-03-01 Epub Date: 2026-06-11 DOI:10.1017/amj.2026.10099
Nadia N Sawicki
{"title":"Management of Obstetric Emergencies: Hospital Best Practices for Protecting Patients and Physicians.","authors":"Nadia N Sawicki","doi":"10.1017/amj.2026.10099","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Patients experiencing pregnancy complications have died after being denied emergency medical treatment in states with restrictive abortion laws even where the laws ostensibly allow pregnancy termination when necessary to save a patient's life. For patients experiencing miscarriage, premature rupture of membranes, placental abruption, severe hypertensive disorders, ectopic pregnancy, and other conditions, a treating physician's decision about whether their condition qualifies as an emergency under state law can mean the difference between life and death. Physicians who treat obstetric emergencies report being torn between delivering evidence-based care and protecting themselves from criminal prosecution. This article frames physician decision-making about emergency abortion within the larger institutional context in which those decisions arise, providing a taxonomy of the myriad hospital policies that impact physicians who treat obstetric emergencies. It evaluates these institutional procedures' efficacy with respect to the dual goals of protecting pregnant patients' health and limiting providers' exposure to legal risk. The article concludes that the optimal institutional approach grants full deference to physicians' clinical judgment while also providing robust institutional support in the form of comprehensive legal guidance and guaranteed legal representation for physicians who are prosecuted for making good faith medical judgments. It calls upon hospitals to re-commit to their primary mission of providing high quality patient care, and to dedicate resources to supporting physicians who deliver evidence-based care despite unrelenting legal and political pressures.</p>","PeriodicalId":7680,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Law & Medicine","volume":"52 1","pages":"81-119"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2026-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Law & Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/amj.2026.10099","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/6/11 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Patients experiencing pregnancy complications have died after being denied emergency medical treatment in states with restrictive abortion laws even where the laws ostensibly allow pregnancy termination when necessary to save a patient's life. For patients experiencing miscarriage, premature rupture of membranes, placental abruption, severe hypertensive disorders, ectopic pregnancy, and other conditions, a treating physician's decision about whether their condition qualifies as an emergency under state law can mean the difference between life and death. Physicians who treat obstetric emergencies report being torn between delivering evidence-based care and protecting themselves from criminal prosecution. This article frames physician decision-making about emergency abortion within the larger institutional context in which those decisions arise, providing a taxonomy of the myriad hospital policies that impact physicians who treat obstetric emergencies. It evaluates these institutional procedures' efficacy with respect to the dual goals of protecting pregnant patients' health and limiting providers' exposure to legal risk. The article concludes that the optimal institutional approach grants full deference to physicians' clinical judgment while also providing robust institutional support in the form of comprehensive legal guidance and guaranteed legal representation for physicians who are prosecuted for making good faith medical judgments. It calls upon hospitals to re-commit to their primary mission of providing high quality patient care, and to dedicate resources to supporting physicians who deliver evidence-based care despite unrelenting legal and political pressures.

产科急诊管理:保护病人和医生的医院最佳做法。
在有限制性堕胎法的州,即使法律表面上允许在必要时终止妊娠以挽救患者的生命,出现妊娠并发症的患者在被拒绝接受紧急医疗治疗后死亡。对于经历流产、胎膜早破、胎盘早剥、严重高血压疾病、异位妊娠和其他情况的患者,根据州法律,治疗医生对其病情是否符合紧急情况的决定可能意味着生与死的区别。治疗产科急诊的医生报告说,他们在提供循证护理和保护自己免受刑事起诉之间左右为难。这篇文章在更大的制度背景下构建了医生关于紧急堕胎的决策,这些决策产生了,提供了影响产科急诊医生的无数医院政策的分类。它评估了这些机构程序在保护孕妇健康和限制提供者暴露于法律风险的双重目标方面的效力。本文的结论是,最优的制度方法既充分尊重医生的临床判断,又以全面的法律指导和保证因善意医疗判断而被起诉的医生的法律代理的形式提供强有力的制度支持。它呼吁医院重新致力于其提供高质量患者护理的主要使命,并投入资源支持不顾无情的法律和政治压力提供循证护理的医生。
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
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
16.70%
发文量
8
期刊介绍: desde Enero 2004 Último Numero: Octubre 2008 AJLM will solicit blind comments from expert peer reviewers, including faculty members of our editorial board, as well as from other preeminent health law and public policy academics and professionals from across the country and around the world.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书