Mara Buchbinder , Kavita S. Arora , Samantha M. McKetchnie , Erika L. Sabbath
{"title":"多布斯阴影下的医疗不确定性:在新的生殖领域治疗产科并发症","authors":"Mara Buchbinder , Kavita S. Arora , Samantha M. McKetchnie , Erika L. Sabbath","doi":"10.1016/j.socscimed.2025.117856","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Recent changes to United States medical practice following the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in <em>Dobbs v Jackson Woman's Health Organization</em> have led to new forms of medical uncertainty arising from the interpretation and implementation of state law. Post-<em>Dobbs</em> legal restrictions are particularly challenging because they entail multiple forms of uncertainty that intensify when combined, with risks to pregnant patients and to the clinicians who care for them. In this article, we identify and describe three distinct types of uncertainty that obstetrician-gynecologists (OB-GYNs) in states with abortion bans encounter when caring for patients with an obstetric complication known as preterm prelabor (or premature) rupture of membranes (PPROM, i.e., ‘water breaking’). PPROM represents a paradigmatic case in which prognostic, legal, and existential uncertainty coalesce, leading to stress and discomfort for both patients and the clinicians caring for them. Focusing on OB-GYNs, we describe each of these forms of medical uncertainty in turn, and then elaborate a case study to show how they operate in tandem over time. In doing so, we add to a growing body of literature highlighting the relationship between structural conditions shaping medicine and uncertainty in practice. Whereas evidence-based medicine is organized around the logic of reducing uncertainty, we find that doing so is far more difficult when the uncertainty arises from politics as opposed to clinical factors.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":49122,"journal":{"name":"Social Science & Medicine","volume":"369 ","pages":"Article 117856"},"PeriodicalIF":4.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Medical uncertainty in the shadow of Dobbs: Treating obstetric complications in a new reproductive frontier\",\"authors\":\"Mara Buchbinder , Kavita S. Arora , Samantha M. McKetchnie , Erika L. Sabbath\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.socscimed.2025.117856\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>Recent changes to United States medical practice following the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in <em>Dobbs v Jackson Woman's Health Organization</em> have led to new forms of medical uncertainty arising from the interpretation and implementation of state law. Post-<em>Dobbs</em> legal restrictions are particularly challenging because they entail multiple forms of uncertainty that intensify when combined, with risks to pregnant patients and to the clinicians who care for them. In this article, we identify and describe three distinct types of uncertainty that obstetrician-gynecologists (OB-GYNs) in states with abortion bans encounter when caring for patients with an obstetric complication known as preterm prelabor (or premature) rupture of membranes (PPROM, i.e., ‘water breaking’). PPROM represents a paradigmatic case in which prognostic, legal, and existential uncertainty coalesce, leading to stress and discomfort for both patients and the clinicians caring for them. Focusing on OB-GYNs, we describe each of these forms of medical uncertainty in turn, and then elaborate a case study to show how they operate in tandem over time. In doing so, we add to a growing body of literature highlighting the relationship between structural conditions shaping medicine and uncertainty in practice. Whereas evidence-based medicine is organized around the logic of reducing uncertainty, we find that doing so is far more difficult when the uncertainty arises from politics as opposed to clinical factors.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49122,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Social Science & Medicine\",\"volume\":\"369 \",\"pages\":\"Article 117856\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Social Science & Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953625001856\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Social Science & Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953625001856","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
Medical uncertainty in the shadow of Dobbs: Treating obstetric complications in a new reproductive frontier
Recent changes to United States medical practice following the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Dobbs v Jackson Woman's Health Organization have led to new forms of medical uncertainty arising from the interpretation and implementation of state law. Post-Dobbs legal restrictions are particularly challenging because they entail multiple forms of uncertainty that intensify when combined, with risks to pregnant patients and to the clinicians who care for them. In this article, we identify and describe three distinct types of uncertainty that obstetrician-gynecologists (OB-GYNs) in states with abortion bans encounter when caring for patients with an obstetric complication known as preterm prelabor (or premature) rupture of membranes (PPROM, i.e., ‘water breaking’). PPROM represents a paradigmatic case in which prognostic, legal, and existential uncertainty coalesce, leading to stress and discomfort for both patients and the clinicians caring for them. Focusing on OB-GYNs, we describe each of these forms of medical uncertainty in turn, and then elaborate a case study to show how they operate in tandem over time. In doing so, we add to a growing body of literature highlighting the relationship between structural conditions shaping medicine and uncertainty in practice. Whereas evidence-based medicine is organized around the logic of reducing uncertainty, we find that doing so is far more difficult when the uncertainty arises from politics as opposed to clinical factors.
期刊介绍:
Social Science & Medicine provides an international and interdisciplinary forum for the dissemination of social science research on health. We publish original research articles (both empirical and theoretical), reviews, position papers and commentaries on health issues, to inform current research, policy and practice in all areas of common interest to social scientists, health practitioners, and policy makers. The journal publishes material relevant to any aspect of health from a wide range of social science disciplines (anthropology, economics, epidemiology, geography, policy, psychology, and sociology), and material relevant to the social sciences from any of the professions concerned with physical and mental health, health care, clinical practice, and health policy and organization. We encourage material which is of general interest to an international readership.