Ultrasound’s ‘window on the womb’ brings ethical challenges for balancing maternal and fetal health interests: obstetricians’ experiences in Australia

, , , &
BMC Medical Ethics 16 (1):31 (2015)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

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

Categories

Keywords

Reprint years

DOI

10.1186/s12910-015-0023-y

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,423

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

My notes

Similar books and articles

Ultrasound: A Window to the Womb?: Obstetric Ultrasound and the Abortion Rights Debate.Joanne Boucher - 2004 - Journal of Medical Humanities 25 (1):7-19.
Introduction.Elizabeth Soliday - 2012 - Techné: Research in Philosophy and Technology 16 (1):1-2.
Invisible Waves of Technology: Ultrasound and the Making of Fetal Images. [REVIEW]Sonia Meyers - 2010 - Medicine Studies 2 (3):197-209.
Fetal Views: Histories and Habits of Looking at the Fetus in Germany. [REVIEW]Susan L. Erikson - 2007 - Journal of Medical Humanities 28 (4):187-212.
Responsibly counselling women about the clinical management of pregnancies complicated by severe fetal anomalies.Frank Chervenak & Laurence B. McCullough - 2012 - Journal of Medical Ethics 38 (7):397-398.
Does professional orientation predict ethical sensitivities? Attitudes of paediatric and obstetric specialists toward fetuses, pregnant women and pregnancy termination.Stephen D. Brown, Karen Donelan, Yolanda Martins, Sadath A. Sayeed, Christine Mitchell, Terry L. Buchmiller, Kelly Burmeister & Jeffrey L. Ecker - 2014 - Journal of Medical Ethics 40 (2):117-122.
A Philosophical Critique of the "Best Interests" Criterion and an Exploration of Clinical Ethical Strategies for Balancing the Interests of Infants or Fetuses, Family Members, and Society in the United States, India, and Sweden.Catherine Myser - 1994 - Dissertation, Georgetown University
Randomized Controlled Trials of Maternal‐Fetal Surgery: A Challenge to Clinical Equipoise.H. C. M. L. Rodrigues & P. P. van den Berg - 2012 - Bioethics 28 (8):405-413.
Predictors of Maternal Health As Perceived By Pregnant Women In Eti-Osa, Lagos State, Nigeria.Sussan O. Adeusi, Olujide A. Adekeye & Lisa O. Ebere - unknown
Mandatory Ultrasound Laws and the Coercive Use of Informed Consent.Cynthia D. Coe & Matthew C. Altman - 2012 - Techné: Research in Philosophy and Technology 16 (1):16-30.
Women requesting Caesareans: ethical implications in light of the new National Institute for Clinical Excellence guidelines.Alice Pearce - 2012 - Clinical Ethics 7 (4):161-165.
Is current practice around late termination of pregnancy eugenic and discriminatory? Maternal interests and abortion.J. Savulescu - 2001 - Journal of Medical Ethics 27 (3):165-171.
How should risks and benefits be balanced in research involving pregnant women and fetuses?C. Strong - 2011 - IRB: Ethics & Human Research 33 (6):1-5.
Maternal-Fetal Surgery: The Fallacy of Abstraction and the Problem of Equipoise. [REVIEW]Anne Drapkin Lyerly & Mary Briody Mahowald - 2001 - Health Care Analysis 9 (2):151-165.
Beyond informed choice: prenatal risk assessment, decision-making and trust.Nete Schwennesen, Mette Nordahl Svendsen & Lene Koch - 2010 - Clinical Ethics 5 (4):207-216.

Analytics

Added to PP
2015-05-08

Downloads
19 (#781,160)

6 months
8 (#347,798)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

Add more citations

References found in this work

A critique of the 'fetus as patient'.Anne Drapkin Lyerly, Margaret Olivia Little & Ruth R. Faden - 2008 - American Journal of Bioethics 8 (7):42 – 44.

Add more references