When Words Fail: "Miscarriage," Referential Ambiguity, and Psychological Harm.

IF 1.3 3区 哲学 Q3 ETHICS
Jessalyn A Bohn
{"title":"When Words Fail: \"Miscarriage,\" Referential Ambiguity, and Psychological Harm.","authors":"Jessalyn A Bohn","doi":"10.1093/jmp/jhad013","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Despite significant efforts to support those bereaved by intrauterine death, they remain susceptible to avoidable psychological harm such as disenfranchised grief, misplaced guilt, and emotional shock. This is in part because the words available to describe intrauterine death-\"miscarriage,\" \"spontaneous abortion,\" and \"pregnancy loss\"-are referentially ambiguous. Despite appearing to refer to one event, they can refer to two distinct events: the baby's death and his preterm delivery. Disenfranchised grief increases when people understand \"miscarriage\" as the physical process of preterm delivery alone, for this obscures the baby's death and excludes non-gestational parents, such as the father. Additionally, focusing on the delivery reinforces the mistaken idea that a gestational mother bears responsibility for her baby's death, increasing misplaced guilt. When these terms instead shift the focus to the baby's intrauterine death rather than the preterm delivery, they can obscure the physically difficult and often traumatic experience women have when they deliver their dead children, leaving women shocked by preterm delivery's physical reality. Given their outsized role in framing the bereaved's experiences, and their duty to avoid harming their patients, healthcare practitioners in particular should take special care to discuss intrauterine death and preterm delivery appropriately with patients and their families. Changing language to describe intrauterine death and preterm delivery clearly and precisely helps mitigate disenfranchised grief, misplaced guilt, and shock, while also helping to reframe the social response to intrauterine death, making it more obvious why certain steps, such as allowing bereavement leave following an intrauterine death, promote healing.</p>","PeriodicalId":47377,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medicine and Philosophy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Medicine and Philosophy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jmp/jhad013","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Despite significant efforts to support those bereaved by intrauterine death, they remain susceptible to avoidable psychological harm such as disenfranchised grief, misplaced guilt, and emotional shock. This is in part because the words available to describe intrauterine death-"miscarriage," "spontaneous abortion," and "pregnancy loss"-are referentially ambiguous. Despite appearing to refer to one event, they can refer to two distinct events: the baby's death and his preterm delivery. Disenfranchised grief increases when people understand "miscarriage" as the physical process of preterm delivery alone, for this obscures the baby's death and excludes non-gestational parents, such as the father. Additionally, focusing on the delivery reinforces the mistaken idea that a gestational mother bears responsibility for her baby's death, increasing misplaced guilt. When these terms instead shift the focus to the baby's intrauterine death rather than the preterm delivery, they can obscure the physically difficult and often traumatic experience women have when they deliver their dead children, leaving women shocked by preterm delivery's physical reality. Given their outsized role in framing the bereaved's experiences, and their duty to avoid harming their patients, healthcare practitioners in particular should take special care to discuss intrauterine death and preterm delivery appropriately with patients and their families. Changing language to describe intrauterine death and preterm delivery clearly and precisely helps mitigate disenfranchised grief, misplaced guilt, and shock, while also helping to reframe the social response to intrauterine death, making it more obvious why certain steps, such as allowing bereavement leave following an intrauterine death, promote healing.

当言语失败:“流产”,指代歧义,和心理伤害。
尽管为支持那些因宫内死亡而失去亲人的人做出了重大努力,但他们仍然容易受到本可避免的心理伤害,如被剥夺权利的悲伤、错位的内疚和情感冲击。这在一定程度上是因为可用来描述宫内死亡的词语——“流产”、“自然流产”和“流产”——在指代上是模棱两可的。尽管看起来是指一个事件,但它们可以指两个不同的事件:婴儿的死亡和他的早产。当人们把“流产”理解为仅仅是早产的生理过程时,被剥夺公民权的悲痛会增加,因为这模糊了婴儿的死亡,并排除了未怀孕的父母,如父亲。此外,对分娩的关注强化了怀孕母亲对婴儿死亡负有责任的错误观念,增加了错位的内疚。当这些术语将焦点转移到婴儿的宫内死亡而不是早产时,它们可能会掩盖妇女在分娩死去的孩子时身体上的困难和往往创伤的经历,使妇女对早产的物理现实感到震惊。鉴于他们在构建丧亲经历方面的巨大作用,以及他们避免伤害患者的责任,医疗从业人员尤其应该特别注意与患者及其家属适当地讨论宫内死亡和早产。改变语言来清晰准确地描述宫内死亡和早产有助于减轻被剥夺权利的悲伤、错位的内疚和震惊,同时也有助于重新构建对宫内死亡的社会反应,使某些步骤更明显,比如允许在宫内死亡后离开丧亲之家,促进康复。
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
2.90
自引率
6.20%
发文量
30
期刊介绍: This bimonthly publication explores the shared themes and concerns of philosophy and the medical sciences. Central issues in medical research and practice have important philosophical dimensions, for, in treating disease and promoting health, medicine involves presuppositions about human goals and values. Conversely, the concerns of philosophy often significantly relate to those of medicine, as philosophers seek to understand the nature of medical knowledge and the human condition in the modern world. In addition, recent developments in medical technology and treatment create moral problems that raise important philosophical questions. The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy aims to provide an ongoing forum for the discussion of such themes and issues.
×
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