Van der Pijl et al outline data suggesting an alarmingly high incidence of violation of the bodily integrity of patients in labour, including episiotomies performed without patients’ consent, or over their explicit objection.1 Similar data have been reported from the USA and Canada.2 The authors appropriately conclude that explicit consent is required at the time of all invasive obstetrical procedures, including episiotomy. Commonsense adjustments to the duration and detail of consent under conditions of clinical urgency are appropriate and should be (...) familiar to any clinician involved in perinatal care, as well as non-obstetric proceduralists caring for acutely ill patients. However, complete omission of consent for any of these procedures is both disrespectful to patients’ autonomy and strongly associated with morbidity from birth-related psychosocial trauma.3–5 The true incidence of obstetrical procedures performed without patients’ consent is difficult to determine for multiple reasons, including sample selection, recall bias and patients’ reluctance to reengage with traumatic experiences; however, …. (shrink)

Healthcare policies developed during the COVID-19 pandemic to safeguard community health have the potential to disadvantage women in three areas. First, protocols for deferral of elective surgery may assign a lower priority to important reproductive outcomes. Second, policies regarding the prevention and treatment of COVID-19 may not capture the complexity of the considerations related to pregnancy. Third, policies formulated to reduce infectious exposure inadvertently may increase disparities in maternal health outcomes and rates of violence towards women. In this commentary, we (...) outline these challenges unique to women’s healthcare in a pandemic, provide preliminary recommendations and identify areas for further exploration and refinement of policy. (shrink)

In recent years, shared decision-making has become entrenched in the medical literature and the law as the ideal method for involving patients in decisions related to their health care. Shared decision-making represents a compromise between the opposed extremes of paternalistic interactions that limit patients’ control of their health care, and “informed choice” interactions that require physicians to provide technical expertise only, leaving patients to make all treatment decisions on their own. An implicit goal of shared decision-making is to improve medical (...) care by promoting joint participation of patients and physicians in clinical consultations. The model of shared decision-making may, however, inadequately address the health care needs of lower literate patients, a significant portion of the general population.As shared decision-making is widely held as a clinical ideal, we highlight the difficulties that physicians might have in implementing shared decision-making with lower literate patients. (shrink)

In recent years, shared decision-making has become entrenched in the medical literature and the law as the ideal method for involving patients in decisions related to their health care. Shared decision-making represents a compromise between the opposed extremes of paternalistic interactions that limit patients’ control of their health care, and “informed choice” interactions that require physicians to provide technical expertise only, leaving patients to make all treatment decisions on their own. An implicit goal of shared decision-making is to improve medical (...) care by promoting joint participation of patients and physicians in clinical consultations. The model of shared decision-making may, however, inadequately address the health care needs of lower literate patients, a significant portion of the general population.As shared decision-making is widely held as a clinical ideal, we highlight the difficulties that physicians might have in implementing shared decision-making with lower literate patients. (shrink)

The American Journal of Bioethics, Volume 12, Issue 7, Page 42-43, July 2012.