umu.sePublications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Ultrasound's 'window on the womb' brings ethical challenges for balancing maternal and fetal health interests: obstetricians' experiences in Australia
Umeå University, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Clinical Sciences, Obstetrics and Gynaecology. Judith Lumley Centre, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia.
Judith Lumley Centre, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia . .
Umeå University, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Clinical Sciences, Obstetrics and Gynaecology.
Umeå University, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Nursing.
Show others and affiliations
2015 (English)In: BMC Medical Ethics, ISSN 1472-6939, E-ISSN 1472-6939, Vol. 16, 31Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

BACKGROUND: Obstetric ultrasound has become a significant tool in obstetric practice, however, it has been argued that its increasing use may have adverse implications for women's reproductive freedom. This study aimed to explore Australian obstetricians' experiences and views of the use of obstetric ultrasound both in relation to clinical management of complicated pregnancy, and in situations where maternal and fetal health interests conflict.

METHODS: A qualitative study was undertaken as part of the CROss-Country Ultrasound Study (CROCUS). Interviews were held in November 2012 with 14 obstetricians working in obstetric care in Victoria, Australia. Data were analysed using qualitative content analysis.

RESULTS: One overall theme emerged from the analyses: The ethical challenge of balancing maternal and fetal health interests, built on four categories: First, Encountering maternal altruism' described how pregnant women's often 'altruistic' position in relation to the health and wellbeing of the fetus could create ethical challenges in obstetric management, particularly with an increasing imbalance between fetal benefits and maternal harms. Second, 'Facing shifting attitudes due to visualisation and medico-technical advances' illuminated views that ultrasound and other advances in care have contributed to a shift in what weight to give maternal versus fetal welfare, with increasing attention directed to the fetus. Third, 'Guiding expectant parents in decision-making' described the difficult task of facilitating informed decision-making in situations where maternal and fetal health interests were not aligned, or in situations characterised by uncertainty. Fourth, 'Separating private from professional views' illuminated divergent views on when the fetus can be regarded as a person. The narratives indicated that the fetus acquired more consideration in decision-making the further the gestation progressed. However, there was universal agreement that obstetricians could never act on fetal grounds without the pregnant woman's consent.

CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that medico-technical advances such as ultrasound have set the scene for increasing ethical dilemmas in obstetric practice. The obstetricians interviewed had experienced a shift in previously accepted views about what weight to give maternal versus fetal welfare. As fetal diagnostics and treatment continue to advance, how best to protect pregnant women's right to autonomy requires careful consideration and further investigation.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2015. Vol. 16, 31
Keyword [en]
Australia, clinical experiences, clinical management, counselling, obstetric ultrasound, obstetricians, obstetrics, perspectives, pregnancy complications, qualitative study
National Category
Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Medicine Nursing
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:umu:diva-103708DOI: 10.1186/s12910-015-0023-yISI: 000359414600001PubMedID: 25953252OAI: oai:DiVA.org:umu-103708DiVA: diva2:814846
Available from: 2015-05-28 Created: 2015-05-28 Last updated: 2017-12-04Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

fulltext(437 kB)79 downloads
File information
File name FULLTEXT01.pdfFile size 437 kBChecksum SHA-512
0ddce3baa35cf1d28a1070aeebaa7af934d4b66e2e690f2186bfde5977ad6a790dfc523355994ba1d8240c63bd66d6bb7ca91403caf5ca0b29acf1391aff1b13
Type fulltextMimetype application/pdf

Other links

Publisher's full textPubMed

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Edvardsson, KristinaLalos, AnnPersson, MargaretaMogren, Ingrid
By organisation
Obstetrics and GynaecologyDepartment of Nursing
In the same journal
BMC Medical Ethics
Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive MedicineNursing

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar
Total: 79 downloads
The number of downloads is the sum of all downloads of full texts. It may include eg previous versions that are now no longer available

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn
Total: 136 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf