{"title":"罗伊诉韦德案的逆转及其对新生儿护理法律限制的影响。","authors":"Christine E Bishop, Maya Manian","doi":"10.1097/MOP.0000000000001445","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose of review: </strong>This review examines the implications of the 2022 Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization decision on neonatal care and explores how legal restrictions on abortion are influencing medical practices for neonates and the broader healthcare landscape for neonates.</p><p><strong>Recent findings: </strong>The Dobbs decision has led to increased uncertainty and challenges in both maternal and neonatal healthcare. Restrictive abortion laws are associated with higher infant mortality rates, increased health disparity, and increased care provider ethical dilemmas and moral distress due to legal uncertainty surrounding the care of infants. However, current changes in federal and state law regarding abortion do not change the previously established standard of care for neonates. Other federal legal statutes potentially addressing the care of neonates have existed for over 20 years and have had minimal effect on the practice of neonatology, because there is no record of federal enforcement actions or federal case law to clarify how the law should be interpreted.</p><p><strong>Summary: </strong>While restrictive abortion laws primarily affect women and pregnant people's health care, indirect effects on neonatal care are becoming more common. There are other laws and policies with greater potential to regulate care for infants at the federal and state level. Professional medical standards remain the guiding framework in neonatal care. Clinicians can mitigate legal concerns through knowledge and advocacy.</p>","PeriodicalId":10985,"journal":{"name":"Current opinion in pediatrics","volume":" ","pages":"165-172"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Reversal of Roe v. Wade and implications of legal restrictions for neonatal care.\",\"authors\":\"Christine E Bishop, Maya Manian\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/MOP.0000000000001445\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose of review: </strong>This review examines the implications of the 2022 Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization decision on neonatal care and explores how legal restrictions on abortion are influencing medical practices for neonates and the broader healthcare landscape for neonates.</p><p><strong>Recent findings: </strong>The Dobbs decision has led to increased uncertainty and challenges in both maternal and neonatal healthcare. Restrictive abortion laws are associated with higher infant mortality rates, increased health disparity, and increased care provider ethical dilemmas and moral distress due to legal uncertainty surrounding the care of infants. However, current changes in federal and state law regarding abortion do not change the previously established standard of care for neonates. Other federal legal statutes potentially addressing the care of neonates have existed for over 20 years and have had minimal effect on the practice of neonatology, because there is no record of federal enforcement actions or federal case law to clarify how the law should be interpreted.</p><p><strong>Summary: </strong>While restrictive abortion laws primarily affect women and pregnant people's health care, indirect effects on neonatal care are becoming more common. There are other laws and policies with greater potential to regulate care for infants at the federal and state level. Professional medical standards remain the guiding framework in neonatal care. Clinicians can mitigate legal concerns through knowledge and advocacy.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10985,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Current opinion in pediatrics\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"165-172\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Current opinion in pediatrics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/MOP.0000000000001445\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/2/7 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PEDIATRICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Current opinion in pediatrics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/MOP.0000000000001445","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/2/7 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PEDIATRICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
综述目的:本综述探讨了2022年Dobbs v. Jackson妇女健康组织对新生儿护理的决定的含义,并探讨了堕胎的法律限制如何影响新生儿的医疗实践和更广泛的新生儿医疗保健前景。最近的发现:多布斯的决定已经导致增加的不确定性和挑战,在产妇和新生儿保健。限制性堕胎法与更高的婴儿死亡率、更大的健康差距以及由于围绕婴儿护理的法律不确定性而增加的护理提供者伦理困境和道德困境有关。然而,目前联邦和州关于堕胎的法律的变化并没有改变以前建立的新生儿护理标准。其他可能涉及新生儿护理的联邦法律法规已经存在了20多年,对新生儿学实践的影响微乎其微,因为没有联邦执法行动或联邦判例法的记录来阐明法律应该如何解释。摘要:虽然限制性堕胎法主要影响妇女和孕妇的保健,但对新生儿护理的间接影响也越来越普遍。在联邦和州一级,还有其他更有可能规范婴儿护理的法律和政策。专业医疗标准仍然是新生儿护理的指导框架。临床医生可以通过知识和宣传来减轻法律问题。
Reversal of Roe v. Wade and implications of legal restrictions for neonatal care.
Purpose of review: This review examines the implications of the 2022 Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization decision on neonatal care and explores how legal restrictions on abortion are influencing medical practices for neonates and the broader healthcare landscape for neonates.
Recent findings: The Dobbs decision has led to increased uncertainty and challenges in both maternal and neonatal healthcare. Restrictive abortion laws are associated with higher infant mortality rates, increased health disparity, and increased care provider ethical dilemmas and moral distress due to legal uncertainty surrounding the care of infants. However, current changes in federal and state law regarding abortion do not change the previously established standard of care for neonates. Other federal legal statutes potentially addressing the care of neonates have existed for over 20 years and have had minimal effect on the practice of neonatology, because there is no record of federal enforcement actions or federal case law to clarify how the law should be interpreted.
Summary: While restrictive abortion laws primarily affect women and pregnant people's health care, indirect effects on neonatal care are becoming more common. There are other laws and policies with greater potential to regulate care for infants at the federal and state level. Professional medical standards remain the guiding framework in neonatal care. Clinicians can mitigate legal concerns through knowledge and advocacy.
期刊介绍:
Current Opinion in Pediatrics is a reader-friendly resource which allows the reader to keep up-to-date with the most important advances in the pediatric field. Each issue of Current Opinion in Pediatrics contains three main sections delivering a diverse and comprehensive cover of all key issues related to pediatrics; including genetics, therapeutics and toxicology, adolescent medicine, neonatology and perinatology, and orthopedics. Unique to Current Opinion in Pediatrics is the office pediatrics section which appears in every issue and covers popular topics such as fever, immunization and ADHD. Current Opinion in Pediatrics is an indispensable journal for the busy clinician, researcher or student.