劳动中的同意:超越法律方面和硬膜外麻醉:一个回答。

IF 6.9 1区 医学 Q1 ANESTHESIOLOGY
Anaesthesia Pub Date : 2025-08-15 DOI:10.1111/anae.16743
Jacqueline Nicholls, the authors
{"title":"劳动中的同意:超越法律方面和硬膜外麻醉:一个回答。","authors":"Jacqueline Nicholls,&nbsp;the authors","doi":"10.1111/anae.16743","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>We are grateful to Impiumi and Kearsley for their comment [<span>1</span>] on our article [<span>2</span>]. As they rightly remind us, consent is the legal device to give effect to patient autonomy. We agree that the vexed question of whether any or all consent provided by a woman in labour can be said to reflect a genuinely autonomous choice-making consent process merits much more comprehensive attention; we are actively considering expanding this across a range of decisions.</p><p>Recognising and responding to capacity concerns is a significant consideration. However, we consider the absence of a consensus on capacity entirely appropriate and in line not only with the statutory provisions of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (England and Wales), but also with patient-centric care per se. We would be extremely concerned if a consensus view were ever to be proposed. Not surprisingly, the appreciation of capacity issues among healthcare professionals working in areas outside neurology is limited [<span>3</span>] and we do think there may be merit in providing more opportunities for healthcare professionals in the obstetric setting to undergo explicit training in capacity.</p><p>The ethical tension created between the desire to relieve pain and respect autonomy in a person whose decision-making capacity may be questionable is undoubtedly challenging, both professionally and personally. We wonder whether it may be worthwhile to reconsider our professional understanding of autonomous decision-making to allow for a less binary approach. For example, David Enoch refers to autonomy in two senses: as sovereignty, signifying the act of making a final decision; and as non-alienation, reflecting a decision-making process which accords with a woman's core values and commitments [<span>4</span>]. If the clinical record contained some explicit indication of a woman's values this might be a way to start thinking about a more authentic consent process. Building on this pragmatically we share the view that there is a need to improve ways of fostering discussion in advance of decisions which a woman might need to make during labour. Designing and tailoring such discussions to make them helpful and meaningful to individual women is a profound challenge which goes beyond mere information provision. Control and a sense of agency are more strongly related to women's positive reports of birth experience than are specific details of the birth experience [<span>5</span>], so optimising the design of such advance discussions is a challenge which should not be ignored.</p>","PeriodicalId":7742,"journal":{"name":"Anaesthesia","volume":"80 10","pages":"1276-1277"},"PeriodicalIF":6.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://associationofanaesthetists-publications.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/anae.16743","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Consent in labour: beyond the legal aspects and epidurals: a reply\",\"authors\":\"Jacqueline Nicholls,&nbsp;the authors\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/anae.16743\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>We are grateful to Impiumi and Kearsley for their comment [<span>1</span>] on our article [<span>2</span>]. As they rightly remind us, consent is the legal device to give effect to patient autonomy. We agree that the vexed question of whether any or all consent provided by a woman in labour can be said to reflect a genuinely autonomous choice-making consent process merits much more comprehensive attention; we are actively considering expanding this across a range of decisions.</p><p>Recognising and responding to capacity concerns is a significant consideration. However, we consider the absence of a consensus on capacity entirely appropriate and in line not only with the statutory provisions of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (England and Wales), but also with patient-centric care per se. We would be extremely concerned if a consensus view were ever to be proposed. Not surprisingly, the appreciation of capacity issues among healthcare professionals working in areas outside neurology is limited [<span>3</span>] and we do think there may be merit in providing more opportunities for healthcare professionals in the obstetric setting to undergo explicit training in capacity.</p><p>The ethical tension created between the desire to relieve pain and respect autonomy in a person whose decision-making capacity may be questionable is undoubtedly challenging, both professionally and personally. We wonder whether it may be worthwhile to reconsider our professional understanding of autonomous decision-making to allow for a less binary approach. For example, David Enoch refers to autonomy in two senses: as sovereignty, signifying the act of making a final decision; and as non-alienation, reflecting a decision-making process which accords with a woman's core values and commitments [<span>4</span>]. If the clinical record contained some explicit indication of a woman's values this might be a way to start thinking about a more authentic consent process. Building on this pragmatically we share the view that there is a need to improve ways of fostering discussion in advance of decisions which a woman might need to make during labour. Designing and tailoring such discussions to make them helpful and meaningful to individual women is a profound challenge which goes beyond mere information provision. Control and a sense of agency are more strongly related to women's positive reports of birth experience than are specific details of the birth experience [<span>5</span>], so optimising the design of such advance discussions is a challenge which should not be ignored.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7742,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Anaesthesia\",\"volume\":\"80 10\",\"pages\":\"1276-1277\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":6.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://associationofanaesthetists-publications.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/anae.16743\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Anaesthesia\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://associationofanaesthetists-publications.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/anae.16743\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ANESTHESIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Anaesthesia","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://associationofanaesthetists-publications.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/anae.16743","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

我们非常感谢Impiumi和Kearsley对我们的文章b[1]的评论。正如他们正确地提醒我们的那样,同意是赋予患者自主权的法律手段。我们同意,分娩妇女提供的任何或全部同意是否可以说反映了一个真正自主的选择同意过程,这一棘手的问题值得更全面的关注;我们正在积极考虑将其扩展到一系列决策中。认识和应对能力问题是一个重要的考虑因素。然而,我们认为对能力缺乏共识是完全合适的,不仅符合2005年《精神能力法》(英格兰和威尔士)的法定规定,而且也符合以病人为中心的护理本身。如果有人提出协商一致意见,我们将极为关切。毫不奇怪,在神经学以外领域工作的医疗保健专业人员对能力问题的认识有限,我们确实认为,为产科环境中的医疗保健专业人员提供更多机会,接受明确的能力培训,可能是有价值的。在减轻痛苦的愿望和尊重一个决策能力可能有问题的人的自主权之间产生的道德紧张无疑是具有挑战性的,无论是专业还是个人。我们想知道是否值得重新考虑我们对自主决策的专业理解,以允许一种不那么二元的方法。例如,大卫·以诺在两种意义上提到自治:作为主权,表示做出最终决定的行为;作为非异化,反映了一个符合女性核心价值观和承诺的决策过程。如果临床记录包含一些明确的女性价值观,这可能是一种开始考虑更真实的同意过程的方式。在此基础上,我们务实地同意这样一种观点,即有必要改进在妇女可能需要在分娩期间作出决定之前促进讨论的方式。设计和调整这种讨论,使其对个别妇女有帮助和有意义,这是一项深刻的挑战,不仅仅是提供资料。与分娩经历的具体细节相比,控制和代理感与女性对分娩经历的积极报告的关系更为密切,因此优化这种预先讨论的设计是一项不容忽视的挑战。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Consent in labour: beyond the legal aspects and epidurals: a reply

Consent in labour: beyond the legal aspects and epidurals: a reply

Consent in labour: beyond the legal aspects and epidurals: a reply

Consent in labour: beyond the legal aspects and epidurals: a reply

Consent in labour: beyond the legal aspects and epidurals: a reply

We are grateful to Impiumi and Kearsley for their comment [1] on our article [2]. As they rightly remind us, consent is the legal device to give effect to patient autonomy. We agree that the vexed question of whether any or all consent provided by a woman in labour can be said to reflect a genuinely autonomous choice-making consent process merits much more comprehensive attention; we are actively considering expanding this across a range of decisions.

Recognising and responding to capacity concerns is a significant consideration. However, we consider the absence of a consensus on capacity entirely appropriate and in line not only with the statutory provisions of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (England and Wales), but also with patient-centric care per se. We would be extremely concerned if a consensus view were ever to be proposed. Not surprisingly, the appreciation of capacity issues among healthcare professionals working in areas outside neurology is limited [3] and we do think there may be merit in providing more opportunities for healthcare professionals in the obstetric setting to undergo explicit training in capacity.

The ethical tension created between the desire to relieve pain and respect autonomy in a person whose decision-making capacity may be questionable is undoubtedly challenging, both professionally and personally. We wonder whether it may be worthwhile to reconsider our professional understanding of autonomous decision-making to allow for a less binary approach. For example, David Enoch refers to autonomy in two senses: as sovereignty, signifying the act of making a final decision; and as non-alienation, reflecting a decision-making process which accords with a woman's core values and commitments [4]. If the clinical record contained some explicit indication of a woman's values this might be a way to start thinking about a more authentic consent process. Building on this pragmatically we share the view that there is a need to improve ways of fostering discussion in advance of decisions which a woman might need to make during labour. Designing and tailoring such discussions to make them helpful and meaningful to individual women is a profound challenge which goes beyond mere information provision. Control and a sense of agency are more strongly related to women's positive reports of birth experience than are specific details of the birth experience [5], so optimising the design of such advance discussions is a challenge which should not be ignored.

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
Anaesthesia
Anaesthesia 医学-麻醉学
CiteScore
21.20
自引率
9.30%
发文量
300
审稿时长
6 months
期刊介绍: The official journal of the Association of Anaesthetists is Anaesthesia. It is a comprehensive international publication that covers a wide range of topics. The journal focuses on general and regional anaesthesia, as well as intensive care and pain therapy. It includes original articles that have undergone peer review, covering all aspects of these fields, including research on equipment.
×
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