Donald School Journal of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology

Register      Login

VOLUME 5 , ISSUE 2 ( April-June, 2011 ) > List of Articles

REVIEW ARTICLE

Ethics in Obstetric Ultrasound: The Past 25 Years in Perspective

Laurence B McCullough, Frank A Chervenak

Keywords : Ethics,Fetus as a patient,Beneficence,Respect for autonomy

Citation Information : McCullough LB, Chervenak FA. Ethics in Obstetric Ultrasound: The Past 25 Years in Perspective. Donald School J Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2011; 5 (2):79-84.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10009-1181

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 01-06-2011

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2011; The Author(s).


Abstract

Ethics is an essential component of obstetric ultrasound, an area in which the authors have collaborated for the past 25 years. The authors describe their collaboration. They then present one of the core ethical concepts of obstetric ultrasound: The ethical concept of the fetus as a patient. Next, they present one of the clearest clinical applications of ethics to obstetric ultrasound: Autonomy-enhancing strategies. The authors hope that these two paradigms will convince the reader that ethics is an essential dimension of obstetric ultrasound and stimulate further interest.


PDF Share
  1. Ethics in obstetric ultrasound. J Ultrasound Med 1989;8:493.
  2. Prenatal informed consent for sonogram: An indication for obstetric ultrasonography. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1989;161:857-60.
  3. Should all pregnant patients be offered prenatal diagnosis regardless of age? Obstet Gynecol 1993;82:315-16.
  4. Prenatal informed consent for ultrasound: The time for firsttrimester nuchal translucency has come. J Ultrasound Med 2001;20:1147-52.
  5. Ethics and routine ultrasonography in pregnancy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1990;163:256-58.
  6. Perinatal ethics: A practical method of analysis of obligations to mother and fetus. Obstet Gynecol 1985;66:442.
  7. The Cornell University experience. Fetal Diagn Ther 2003;18:217-22.
  8. Ethics in obstetrics and gynecology. New York: Oxford University Press, 1994.
  9. Ancient medicine. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1967:3.
  10. Epidemics. In: Jones WHS, trans., Hippocrates, vol 1. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press 1923:165.
  11. A history and theory of informed consent. New York: Oxford University Press 1986.
  12. A critical analysis of the concept and discourse of ‘unborn child’. Am J Bioeth 2008;8:34-39.
  13. An ethically justified, clinically comprehensive approach to peri-viability: Gynaecological, obstetric, perinatal, and neonatal dimensions. J Obstet Gynaecol 2007;27:3-7.
  14. For the National Institute of Health and Human Development Neonatal Research Network. N Engl J Med 2008;358:1672-81.
  15. Members of the FASTER Trial Research Consortium, Chasen ST, Skupski DW, Chervenak FA, McCullough LB. First-trimester nuchal translucency screening. J Ultrasound Med 2002;21:481-87.
  16. Committee on Practice Bulletins. Screening for fetal chromosomal abnormalities. Obstet Gynecol 2007;109:217-27.
  17. Aneuploidy screening: What test should I use? Obstet Gynecol 2006;107:715-18.
  18. The paradox of choice: Why more is less. New York: Ecco, 2004.
  19. Screening for Down's syndrome: Too many choices? N Engl J Med 2003;349:1471-73.
  20. Less (information) is more. Newsweek. Accessed at http://www.newsweek.com/id/71514, Accessed November 20, 2010.
  21. Enhancing patient autonomy with risk assessment and invasive diagnosis: An ethical solution to a clinical challenge. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2008;199:19.e1-e4.
  22. Transparency: Informed consent in primary care. Hastings Cent Rep 1989;19:5-9.
  23. Informed consent: Patient autonomy and physician beneficence within health care. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press 1998.
  24. Health professionals’ and service users’ interpretation of screening test results: Experimental study. BMJ 2006;333:284-88.
  25. Evidencebased obstetric ethics and informed decision-making about invasive diagnosis after first-trimester assessment for risk of trisomy 21. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2005;193:322-26.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.