Treating Fetal Pain: Standard of Care for Some, But Not for All.

IF 0.5 4区 医学 Q3 LAW Issues in Law & Medicine Pub Date : 2019-01-01
Robin Pierucci
{"title":"Treating Fetal Pain: Standard of Care for Some, But Not for All.","authors":"Robin Pierucci","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Fetal pain is a hot topic of debate, but not amongst the neonatologists who daily treat premature babies. The uncontroversial medical standard of care for this population's treatment includes avoiding, minimizing, or intentionally treating pain, and this standard has evolved due to the data of multiple lines of research. While it is true that unsettled debate over how to best define \"pain\" continues, this debate does not change the fact that premature babies' outcomes are better when what seems to be painful stimuli is removed or treated. Thus there is an uncomfortable paradox between the current standard of care for neonatologists, and what remains legal for obstetricians to do to the same patient. While this article is not an all-inclusive literature review, it is a brief presentation of the information that informs current neonatal practice but does not equally inform national law.</p>","PeriodicalId":48665,"journal":{"name":"Issues in Law & Medicine","volume":"34 2","pages":"153-160"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2019-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Issues in Law & Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Fetal pain is a hot topic of debate, but not amongst the neonatologists who daily treat premature babies. The uncontroversial medical standard of care for this population's treatment includes avoiding, minimizing, or intentionally treating pain, and this standard has evolved due to the data of multiple lines of research. While it is true that unsettled debate over how to best define "pain" continues, this debate does not change the fact that premature babies' outcomes are better when what seems to be painful stimuli is removed or treated. Thus there is an uncomfortable paradox between the current standard of care for neonatologists, and what remains legal for obstetricians to do to the same patient. While this article is not an all-inclusive literature review, it is a brief presentation of the information that informs current neonatal practice but does not equally inform national law.

分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
治疗胎儿疼痛:标准护理对一些,但不是所有。
胎儿疼痛是一个争论的热门话题,但不是在每天治疗早产儿的新生儿学家中。对于这一人群的治疗,无可争议的医疗标准包括避免、最小化或有意治疗疼痛,这一标准是根据多种研究数据而发展起来的。虽然关于如何最好地定义“疼痛”的争论仍在继续,但这场争论并没有改变这样一个事实,即当似乎是疼痛的刺激被移除或治疗时,早产儿的结局会更好。因此,目前新生儿医生的护理标准与产科医生对同一病人的合法做法之间存在着令人不安的矛盾。虽然这篇文章不是一个包罗万象的文献综述,它是一个信息的简要介绍,告知当前新生儿的做法,但不平等地告知国家法律。
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
Issues in Law & Medicine
Issues in Law & Medicine Medicine-Health Policy
CiteScore
0.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: Issues in Law & Medicine is a peer reviewed professional journal published semiannually. Founded in 1985, ILM is co-sponsored by the National Legal Center for the Medically Dependent & Disabled, Inc. and the Watson Bowes Research Institute. Issues is devoted to providing technical and informational assistance to attorneys, health care professionals, educators and administrators on legal, medical, and ethical issues arising from health care decisions. Its subscribers include law libraries, medical libraries, university libraries, court libraries, attorneys, physicians, university professors and other scholars, primarily in the U.S. and Canada, but also in Austria, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Italy, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Japan, Russia, South Korea, Spain, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom.
期刊最新文献
A Reanalysis of Mental Disorders Risk Following First-Trimester Abortions in Denmark. In Vitro Fertilization, State Wrongful Death Statutes and State Fetal Homicide Statutes: The Reaction to LePage v. Center for Reproductive Medicine. International Standards and Features of Financing in the Field of Health Care and Provision of Medical Services. Misleading Statements About "Life of the Mother" Exceptions in Pro-life Laws Require Correction. State Regulation of Ensuring the Quality Medical Care During Martial Law in Ukraine: Lessons for the International Community.
×
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