母胎手术:承认胎儿的耐心会对孕妇的自主权构成威胁吗?

IF 1.8 3区 哲学 Q2 ETHICS
Health Care Analysis Pub Date : 2021-12-01 Epub Date: 2021-10-21 DOI:10.1007/s10728-021-00440-2
Dunja Begović
{"title":"母胎手术:承认胎儿的耐心会对孕妇的自主权构成威胁吗?","authors":"Dunja Begović","doi":"10.1007/s10728-021-00440-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Maternal-fetal surgery (MFS) encompasses a range of innovative procedures aiming to treat fetal illnesses and anomalies during pregnancy. Their development and gradual introduction into healthcare raise important ethical issues concerning respect for pregnant women's bodily integrity and autonomy. This paper asks what kind of ethical framework should be employed to best regulate the practice of MFS without eroding the hard-won rights of pregnant women. I examine some existing models conceptualising the relationship between a pregnant woman and the fetus to determine what kind of framework is the most adequate for MFS, and conclude that an ecosystem or maternal-fetal dyad model is best suited for upholding women's autonomy. However, I suggest that an appropriate framework needs to incorporate some notion of fetal patienthood, albeit a very limited one, in order to be consistent with the views of healthcare providers and their pregnant patients. I argue that such an ethical framework is both theoretically sound and fundamentally respectful of women's autonomy, and is thus best suited to protect women from coercion or undue paternalism when deciding whether to undergo MFS.</p>","PeriodicalId":46740,"journal":{"name":"Health Care Analysis","volume":"29 4","pages":"301-318"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8529227/pdf/","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Maternal-Fetal Surgery: Does Recognising Fetal Patienthood Pose a Threat to Pregnant Women's Autonomy?\",\"authors\":\"Dunja Begović\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10728-021-00440-2\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Maternal-fetal surgery (MFS) encompasses a range of innovative procedures aiming to treat fetal illnesses and anomalies during pregnancy. Their development and gradual introduction into healthcare raise important ethical issues concerning respect for pregnant women's bodily integrity and autonomy. This paper asks what kind of ethical framework should be employed to best regulate the practice of MFS without eroding the hard-won rights of pregnant women. I examine some existing models conceptualising the relationship between a pregnant woman and the fetus to determine what kind of framework is the most adequate for MFS, and conclude that an ecosystem or maternal-fetal dyad model is best suited for upholding women's autonomy. However, I suggest that an appropriate framework needs to incorporate some notion of fetal patienthood, albeit a very limited one, in order to be consistent with the views of healthcare providers and their pregnant patients. I argue that such an ethical framework is both theoretically sound and fundamentally respectful of women's autonomy, and is thus best suited to protect women from coercion or undue paternalism when deciding whether to undergo MFS.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":46740,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Health Care Analysis\",\"volume\":\"29 4\",\"pages\":\"301-318\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8529227/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Health Care Analysis\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10728-021-00440-2\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2021/10/21 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Care Analysis","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10728-021-00440-2","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/10/21 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

母胎手术(MFS)包括一系列旨在治疗妊娠期间胎儿疾病和异常的创新程序。它们的发展和逐渐被引入医疗保健领域,引发了关于尊重孕妇身体完整和自主的重要伦理问题。在不损害孕妇来之不易的权利的情况下,应该采用什么样的伦理框架来最好地规范MFS的实践。我研究了一些现有的模型,这些模型将孕妇和胎儿之间的关系概念化,以确定哪种框架最适合MFS,并得出结论,生态系统或母胎二元模型最适合维护妇女的自主权。然而,我建议一个适当的框架需要包含一些胎儿耐心的概念,尽管是一个非常有限的概念,以便与医疗保健提供者及其怀孕患者的观点保持一致。我认为,这样的伦理框架在理论上是合理的,从根本上尊重妇女的自主权,因此最适合保护妇女在决定是否接受MFS时免受强迫或不当的家长式作风的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Maternal-Fetal Surgery: Does Recognising Fetal Patienthood Pose a Threat to Pregnant Women's Autonomy?

Maternal-fetal surgery (MFS) encompasses a range of innovative procedures aiming to treat fetal illnesses and anomalies during pregnancy. Their development and gradual introduction into healthcare raise important ethical issues concerning respect for pregnant women's bodily integrity and autonomy. This paper asks what kind of ethical framework should be employed to best regulate the practice of MFS without eroding the hard-won rights of pregnant women. I examine some existing models conceptualising the relationship between a pregnant woman and the fetus to determine what kind of framework is the most adequate for MFS, and conclude that an ecosystem or maternal-fetal dyad model is best suited for upholding women's autonomy. However, I suggest that an appropriate framework needs to incorporate some notion of fetal patienthood, albeit a very limited one, in order to be consistent with the views of healthcare providers and their pregnant patients. I argue that such an ethical framework is both theoretically sound and fundamentally respectful of women's autonomy, and is thus best suited to protect women from coercion or undue paternalism when deciding whether to undergo MFS.

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
CiteScore
4.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
3
期刊介绍: Health Care Analysis is a journal that promotes dialogue and debate about conceptual and normative issues related to health and health care, including health systems, healthcare provision, health law, public policy and health, professional health practice, health services organization and decision-making, and health-related education at all levels of clinical medicine, public health and global health. Health Care Analysis seeks to support the conversation between philosophy and policy, in particular illustrating the importance of conceptual and normative analysis to health policy, practice and research. As such, papers accepted for publication are likely to analyse philosophical questions related to health, health care or health policy that focus on one or more of the following: aims or ends, theories, frameworks, concepts, principles, values or ideology. All styles of theoretical analysis are welcome providing that they illuminate conceptual or normative issues and encourage debate between those interested in health, philosophy and policy. Papers must be rigorous, but should strive for accessibility – with care being taken to ensure that their arguments and implications are plain to a broad academic and international audience. In addition to purely theoretical papers, papers grounded in empirical research or case-studies are very welcome so long as they explore the conceptual or normative implications of such work. Authors are encouraged, where possible, to have regard to the social contexts of the issues they are discussing, and all authors should ensure that they indicate the ‘real world’ implications of their work. Health Care Analysis publishes contributions from philosophers, lawyers, social scientists, healthcare educators, healthcare professionals and administrators, and other health-related academics and policy analysts.
×
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