回复:同意阴道分娩

Rodney W Petersen
{"title":"回复:同意阴道分娩","authors":"Rodney W Petersen","doi":"10.1111/ajo.13033","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Dear Editor, I commend the Journal for promoting a discussion on informed consent for vaginal birth, by publishing the two opinion pieces in the December 2018 issue of ANZJOG. The contrasting views of the authors are mirrored by very different styles of presentation. A/Professor Petersen offers an historical and philosophical argument about the selective advantages of natural childbirth.1 It is both off‐target and biologically incorrect. The obvious mistake occurs in the first sentence. I doubt that A/Professor Petersen could provide any evidence that the process of natural childbirth has materially changed over the course of human evolution. After all, it is one of the selection pressures that evolution applies to produce change. Human anatomy may have evolved. Human culture may have evolved. But the evolutionary function of this selection pressure remains the same as it ever was: to cull mothers and babies. Professor Dietz's main research interest is in uro‐gynaecology, he has little direct involvement in operative obstetrics. However as a scientific observer, he provides a pragmatic and elegant summary of the dilemma facing practising obstetricians.2","PeriodicalId":8599,"journal":{"name":"Australian and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Response to letter re: Consent for vaginal delivery\",\"authors\":\"Rodney W Petersen\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/ajo.13033\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Dear Editor, I commend the Journal for promoting a discussion on informed consent for vaginal birth, by publishing the two opinion pieces in the December 2018 issue of ANZJOG. The contrasting views of the authors are mirrored by very different styles of presentation. A/Professor Petersen offers an historical and philosophical argument about the selective advantages of natural childbirth.1 It is both off‐target and biologically incorrect. The obvious mistake occurs in the first sentence. I doubt that A/Professor Petersen could provide any evidence that the process of natural childbirth has materially changed over the course of human evolution. After all, it is one of the selection pressures that evolution applies to produce change. Human anatomy may have evolved. Human culture may have evolved. But the evolutionary function of this selection pressure remains the same as it ever was: to cull mothers and babies. Professor Dietz's main research interest is in uro‐gynaecology, he has little direct involvement in operative obstetrics. However as a scientific observer, he provides a pragmatic and elegant summary of the dilemma facing practising obstetricians.2\",\"PeriodicalId\":8599,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Australian and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Australian and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/ajo.13033\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australian and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/ajo.13033","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

亲爱的编辑:我赞扬《华尔街日报》通过在2018年12月的《ANZJOG》上发表这两篇评论文章,促进了关于顺产知情同意的讨论。两位作者截然不同的观点反映在截然不同的表达风格上。彼得森教授对自然生育的选择性优势进行了历史和哲学上的论证这是偏离目标和生物学上不正确的。明显的错误出现在第一句。我怀疑彼得森教授能否提供任何证据证明自然分娩的过程在人类进化过程中发生了实质性的变化。毕竟,这是进化用来产生变化的选择压力之一。人体解剖学可能已经进化了。人类文化可能已经进化了。但是这种选择压力的进化功能仍然和以前一样:选择母亲和婴儿。Dietz教授的主要研究兴趣是妇产科,他很少直接参与产科手术。然而,作为一个科学观察者,他提供了一个实用和优雅的总结面临执业产科医生的困境
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Response to letter re: Consent for vaginal delivery
Dear Editor, I commend the Journal for promoting a discussion on informed consent for vaginal birth, by publishing the two opinion pieces in the December 2018 issue of ANZJOG. The contrasting views of the authors are mirrored by very different styles of presentation. A/Professor Petersen offers an historical and philosophical argument about the selective advantages of natural childbirth.1 It is both off‐target and biologically incorrect. The obvious mistake occurs in the first sentence. I doubt that A/Professor Petersen could provide any evidence that the process of natural childbirth has materially changed over the course of human evolution. After all, it is one of the selection pressures that evolution applies to produce change. Human anatomy may have evolved. Human culture may have evolved. But the evolutionary function of this selection pressure remains the same as it ever was: to cull mothers and babies. Professor Dietz's main research interest is in uro‐gynaecology, he has little direct involvement in operative obstetrics. However as a scientific observer, he provides a pragmatic and elegant summary of the dilemma facing practising obstetricians.2
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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