人工胎盘试验中的父母自主性和伦理挑战:解决参与阶段父母的分歧。

IF 3.4 2区 哲学 Q1 ETHICS
Alice Cavolo, Daniel Pizzolato
{"title":"人工胎盘试验中的父母自主性和伦理挑战:解决参与阶段父母的分歧。","authors":"Alice Cavolo, Daniel Pizzolato","doi":"10.1136/jme-2024-110485","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Artificial placentas (APs) are technologies developed to mimic the functioning of the human placenta to support extremely preterm infants in an artificial environment until the lungs are developed enough to support intensive care. AP trials will likely consist of two phases: the delivery into AP, which requires a C-section on the pregnant person, and the AP trial, which only involves the infant. This poses a unique challenge to the principle of respect for autonomy: What if parents disagree on trial participation? In the first phase, the pregnant person has the right to make the final decision as they are the one undergoing a C-section, but in the second phase, parents have equal rights. We identified three solutions. First, to only engage with the pregnant person. Although this is an actionable solution that respects the pregnant person's autonomy, it undermines the co-parent's autonomy. Second, to only enrol agreeing parents. This is again an actionable solution that superficially acknowledges the role of both parents, but it undermines the pregnant person's autonomy. We proposed a midway: Clinicians should engage both parents and strive for consensus. If consensus is not reached, then they should follow the pregnant person's decision. However, it must be clear from the beginning that once the infant is in the AP, for every other medical decision, both parents have equal rights and for entrenched disagreements they should resort to court. This has the advantage of providing an actionable solution while truly acknowledging the role and autonomy of both parents.</p>","PeriodicalId":16317,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medical Ethics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Parental autonomy and ethical challenges in artificial placenta trials: addressing parental disagreements across phases of participation.\",\"authors\":\"Alice Cavolo, Daniel Pizzolato\",\"doi\":\"10.1136/jme-2024-110485\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Artificial placentas (APs) are technologies developed to mimic the functioning of the human placenta to support extremely preterm infants in an artificial environment until the lungs are developed enough to support intensive care. AP trials will likely consist of two phases: the delivery into AP, which requires a C-section on the pregnant person, and the AP trial, which only involves the infant. This poses a unique challenge to the principle of respect for autonomy: What if parents disagree on trial participation? In the first phase, the pregnant person has the right to make the final decision as they are the one undergoing a C-section, but in the second phase, parents have equal rights. We identified three solutions. First, to only engage with the pregnant person. Although this is an actionable solution that respects the pregnant person's autonomy, it undermines the co-parent's autonomy. Second, to only enrol agreeing parents. This is again an actionable solution that superficially acknowledges the role of both parents, but it undermines the pregnant person's autonomy. We proposed a midway: Clinicians should engage both parents and strive for consensus. If consensus is not reached, then they should follow the pregnant person's decision. However, it must be clear from the beginning that once the infant is in the AP, for every other medical decision, both parents have equal rights and for entrenched disagreements they should resort to court. This has the advantage of providing an actionable solution while truly acknowledging the role and autonomy of both parents.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16317,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Medical Ethics\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Medical Ethics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1136/jme-2024-110485\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Medical Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/jme-2024-110485","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

人工胎盘(APs)是一种模仿人类胎盘功能的技术,用于在人工环境中支持极早产儿,直到肺部发育到足以支持重症监护。AP试验可能包括两个阶段:需要对孕妇进行剖腹产的AP分娩阶段,以及只涉及婴儿的AP试验阶段。这对尊重自主权的原则提出了独特的挑战:如果父母不同意参与试验怎么办?在第一阶段,孕妇作为接受剖腹产手术的一方,拥有最终决定权,但在第二阶段,父母拥有平等的权利。我们确定了三种解决方案。首先,只与怀孕的人接触。虽然这是一个可行的解决方案,尊重孕妇的自主权,但它损害了共同父母的自主权。第二,只招收同意的家长。这也是一个可行的解决方案,表面上承认父母双方的作用,但它损害了孕妇的自主权。我们提出了一个折中方案:临床医生应该让父母双方都参与进来,争取达成共识。如果没有达成共识,那么他们应该遵循孕妇的决定。然而,从一开始就必须明确的是,一旦婴儿进入AP,对于任何其他医疗决定,父母双方都有平等的权利,对于根深蒂固的分歧,他们应该诉诸法院。这样做的好处是提供了一个可行的解决方案,同时真正承认父母双方的角色和自主权。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Parental autonomy and ethical challenges in artificial placenta trials: addressing parental disagreements across phases of participation.

Artificial placentas (APs) are technologies developed to mimic the functioning of the human placenta to support extremely preterm infants in an artificial environment until the lungs are developed enough to support intensive care. AP trials will likely consist of two phases: the delivery into AP, which requires a C-section on the pregnant person, and the AP trial, which only involves the infant. This poses a unique challenge to the principle of respect for autonomy: What if parents disagree on trial participation? In the first phase, the pregnant person has the right to make the final decision as they are the one undergoing a C-section, but in the second phase, parents have equal rights. We identified three solutions. First, to only engage with the pregnant person. Although this is an actionable solution that respects the pregnant person's autonomy, it undermines the co-parent's autonomy. Second, to only enrol agreeing parents. This is again an actionable solution that superficially acknowledges the role of both parents, but it undermines the pregnant person's autonomy. We proposed a midway: Clinicians should engage both parents and strive for consensus. If consensus is not reached, then they should follow the pregnant person's decision. However, it must be clear from the beginning that once the infant is in the AP, for every other medical decision, both parents have equal rights and for entrenched disagreements they should resort to court. This has the advantage of providing an actionable solution while truly acknowledging the role and autonomy of both parents.

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
Journal of Medical Ethics
Journal of Medical Ethics 医学-医学:伦理
CiteScore
7.80
自引率
9.80%
发文量
164
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Medical Ethics is a leading international journal that reflects the whole field of medical ethics. The journal seeks to promote ethical reflection and conduct in scientific research and medical practice. It features articles on various ethical aspects of health care relevant to health care professionals, members of clinical ethics committees, medical ethics professionals, researchers and bioscientists, policy makers and patients. Subscribers to the Journal of Medical Ethics also receive Medical Humanities journal at no extra cost. JME is the official journal of the Institute of Medical Ethics.
×
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