生育制度

L. Roth
{"title":"生育制度","authors":"L. Roth","doi":"10.18574/nyu/9781479812257.003.0009","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This chapter argues that defensive medicine is not a significant problem in American obstetrics, despite strong myths about it. Maternity care providers intervene into labor and birth more than is optimal for maternal and infant health, but they do not do so primarily for legal reasons. An analysis of weekend births reveals that births are less likely to occur on the weekend in tort reform states. This suggests the opposite of defensive medicine: providers intervene more in the timing of births when they face less liability risk. Weekend births are also less likely in states with fetus-centered laws, so providers intervene more when women have fewer choices during pregnancy. This chapter then explores two cases as examples of a woman-centered and a fetus-centered regime: Oregon and Mississippi. From a policy perspective, laws that support women’s ability to make decisions for themselves and their fetuses encourage more evidence-based maternity care practices. Reproductive justice would also benefit from universal healthcare that covers all aspects of reproductive health.","PeriodicalId":354942,"journal":{"name":"The Business of Birth","volume":"14 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Reproductive Regimes\",\"authors\":\"L. Roth\",\"doi\":\"10.18574/nyu/9781479812257.003.0009\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This chapter argues that defensive medicine is not a significant problem in American obstetrics, despite strong myths about it. Maternity care providers intervene into labor and birth more than is optimal for maternal and infant health, but they do not do so primarily for legal reasons. An analysis of weekend births reveals that births are less likely to occur on the weekend in tort reform states. This suggests the opposite of defensive medicine: providers intervene more in the timing of births when they face less liability risk. Weekend births are also less likely in states with fetus-centered laws, so providers intervene more when women have fewer choices during pregnancy. This chapter then explores two cases as examples of a woman-centered and a fetus-centered regime: Oregon and Mississippi. From a policy perspective, laws that support women’s ability to make decisions for themselves and their fetuses encourage more evidence-based maternity care practices. Reproductive justice would also benefit from universal healthcare that covers all aspects of reproductive health.\",\"PeriodicalId\":354942,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Business of Birth\",\"volume\":\"14 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Business of Birth\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.18574/nyu/9781479812257.003.0009\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Business of Birth","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18574/nyu/9781479812257.003.0009","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本章认为,尽管人们对防御性医学有着强烈的误解,但它并不是美国产科的一个重大问题。产妇保健提供者对分娩和分娩的干预超过了对母婴健康的最佳干预,但他们这样做主要不是出于法律原因。一项对周末出生的分析显示,在侵权法改革州,周末出生的可能性较小。这表明了防御性医疗的对立面:当提供者面临较少的责任风险时,他们会更多地干预分娩时间。在那些以胎儿为中心的州,周末分娩的可能性也更小,所以当女性在怀孕期间选择更少时,医疗服务提供者会更多地干预。本章随后探讨了两个案例作为以妇女为中心和以胎儿为中心的政权的例子:俄勒冈州和密西西比州。从政策角度来看,支持妇女为自己和胎儿做决定能力的法律鼓励更多以证据为基础的产科护理实践。生殖正义也将受益于涵盖生殖健康所有方面的全民保健。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Reproductive Regimes
This chapter argues that defensive medicine is not a significant problem in American obstetrics, despite strong myths about it. Maternity care providers intervene into labor and birth more than is optimal for maternal and infant health, but they do not do so primarily for legal reasons. An analysis of weekend births reveals that births are less likely to occur on the weekend in tort reform states. This suggests the opposite of defensive medicine: providers intervene more in the timing of births when they face less liability risk. Weekend births are also less likely in states with fetus-centered laws, so providers intervene more when women have fewer choices during pregnancy. This chapter then explores two cases as examples of a woman-centered and a fetus-centered regime: Oregon and Mississippi. From a policy perspective, laws that support women’s ability to make decisions for themselves and their fetuses encourage more evidence-based maternity care practices. Reproductive justice would also benefit from universal healthcare that covers all aspects of reproductive health.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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