The Machine That Goes Ping!

L. Roth
{"title":"The Machine That Goes Ping!","authors":"L. Roth","doi":"10.18574/nyu/9781479812257.003.0006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This chapter explores the use of electronic fetal monitoring (EFM) as a prime example of technology fetishism. EFM is not evidence based, but most maternity care providers routinely use it. Obstetricians say that they use EFM to defend themselves against liability, and malpractice attorneys often fetishize the paper strips that the EFM produces as “evidence.” At the same time, an analysis demonstrates that EFM is more common in tort reform states that limit providers’ liability risk, which contradicts the idea that providers use it to reduce legal risk. The chapter then explores institutional motivations for EFM use, including scheduling, workload, and profit benefits. These institutional priorities can undermine patients’ rights, quality of care, and informed consent, which are issues of reproductive justice. This chapter then explores the effects of reproductive rights laws on EFM, finding that more fetus-centered laws encourage more EFM, while EFM is less common in states that protect women’s reproductive rights.","PeriodicalId":354942,"journal":{"name":"The Business of Birth","volume":"6 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Business of Birth","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18574/nyu/9781479812257.003.0006","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This chapter explores the use of electronic fetal monitoring (EFM) as a prime example of technology fetishism. EFM is not evidence based, but most maternity care providers routinely use it. Obstetricians say that they use EFM to defend themselves against liability, and malpractice attorneys often fetishize the paper strips that the EFM produces as “evidence.” At the same time, an analysis demonstrates that EFM is more common in tort reform states that limit providers’ liability risk, which contradicts the idea that providers use it to reduce legal risk. The chapter then explores institutional motivations for EFM use, including scheduling, workload, and profit benefits. These institutional priorities can undermine patients’ rights, quality of care, and informed consent, which are issues of reproductive justice. This chapter then explores the effects of reproductive rights laws on EFM, finding that more fetus-centered laws encourage more EFM, while EFM is less common in states that protect women’s reproductive rights.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
机器发出Ping!
本章探讨使用电子胎儿监测(EFM)作为技术拜物教的一个主要例子。EFM不是基于证据的,但大多数产科护理提供者经常使用它。产科医生说,他们使用EFM来保护自己免受责任,而医疗事故律师经常崇拜EFM产生的纸条作为“证据”。同时,一项分析表明,EFM在限制提供者责任风险的侵权改革州更为普遍,这与提供者使用它来降低法律风险的观点相矛盾。然后,本章探讨了EFM使用的制度性动机,包括日程安排、工作量和利润利益。这些机构的优先事项可能会损害患者的权利、护理质量和知情同意,而这些都是生殖正义的问题。然后,本章探讨了生殖权利法律对EFM的影响,发现更多以胎儿为中心的法律鼓励更多的EFM,而EFM在保护妇女生殖权利的州不太常见。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Birth Matters Reproductive Regimes What’s the Rush? Choice Matters Myths of Malpractice
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1