1.
Clin Perinatol
; 30(1): 127-40, vii-viii, 2003 Mar.
Article
in English
| MEDLINE
| ID: mdl-12696791
ABSTRACT
A survey of maternal-fetal medicine fellowship directors in the 1980s found that many supported coercive treatment of pregnant women for the sake of their potential children. To examine whether legal, social, and medical developments since then have led to changes in practice or attitudes about this issue, we surveyed current directors of maternal-fetal medicine fellowship programs. Our data show that the number of requests for court orders in such cases has declined, but some practioners and judges still support them. In this article we offer an update on pertinent legal rulings, describe the method and results of our study, and discuss ethical aspects of the issue.
Subject(s)
Fetal Diseases/therapy , Patient Rights/legislation & jurisprudence , Pregnancy Complications/therapy , Treatment Refusal/legislation & jurisprudence , Civil Rights , Female , Humans , Obstetrics/legislation & jurisprudence , Pregnancy , Treatment Refusal/ethics , United Kingdom , United States
2.
Harv Women's Law J
; 10: 9-58, 1987.
Article
in English
| MEDLINE
| ID: mdl-11649954
Subject(s)
Cesarean Section , Civil Rights , Coercion , Fetus , Jurisprudence , Pregnancy , Pregnant Women , Treatment Refusal , Decision Making , Female , Fetal Viability , Freedom , Hospitals , Humans , Judicial Role , Labor, Obstetric , Liability, Legal , Maternal-Fetal Relations , Personal Autonomy , Physicians , Prenatal Exposure Delayed Effects , Privacy , United States , Women's Rights
3.
Ms
; 13(3): 62, 64, 66+, 1984 Sep.
Article
in English
| MEDLINE
| ID: mdl-11655606