后多布斯时代对女性医疗保健的刑事定罪:反堕胎触发法法规分析。

IF 1.9 4区 医学 Q3 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY European Journal of Contraception and Reproductive Health Care Pub Date : 2023-10-01 Epub Date: 2023-08-17 DOI:10.1080/13625187.2023.2242546
Kristina Domanski, Michael Allswede
{"title":"后多布斯时代对女性医疗保健的刑事定罪:反堕胎触发法法规分析。","authors":"Kristina Domanski,&nbsp;Michael Allswede","doi":"10.1080/13625187.2023.2242546","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>On 24 June 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organisation held that:'The Constitution does not confer a right to abortion; Roe and Casey are overruled; and the authority to regulate abortion is returned to the people and their elected representatives.'Since the ruling, thirteen states have enacted 'trigger laws' that restrict access to abortion except in specified circumstances, such as to save the life of the pregnant patient in a medical emergency. These laws not only inappropriately insert the State into the physician-patient relationship, but create an uncertain practice landscape for physicians by placing them at risk of criminal penalties. We illustrate the complexity of medical decision making for pregnant patients using examples from the case report literature, and discuss how leaving the definition of 'medical emergency' up to courts to decide will create a patchwork of restrictive and permissive standards that criminalises physicians and creates a 'political standard of care' that replaces evidence based medical care.</p>","PeriodicalId":50491,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Contraception and Reproductive Health Care","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The criminalisation of women's healthcare in the post-Dobbs era: an analysis of the anti-abortion trigger law statutes.\",\"authors\":\"Kristina Domanski,&nbsp;Michael Allswede\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/13625187.2023.2242546\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>On 24 June 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organisation held that:'The Constitution does not confer a right to abortion; Roe and Casey are overruled; and the authority to regulate abortion is returned to the people and their elected representatives.'Since the ruling, thirteen states have enacted 'trigger laws' that restrict access to abortion except in specified circumstances, such as to save the life of the pregnant patient in a medical emergency. These laws not only inappropriately insert the State into the physician-patient relationship, but create an uncertain practice landscape for physicians by placing them at risk of criminal penalties. We illustrate the complexity of medical decision making for pregnant patients using examples from the case report literature, and discuss how leaving the definition of 'medical emergency' up to courts to decide will create a patchwork of restrictive and permissive standards that criminalises physicians and creates a 'political standard of care' that replaces evidence based medical care.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50491,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Journal of Contraception and Reproductive Health Care\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Journal of Contraception and Reproductive Health Care\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/13625187.2023.2242546\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/8/17 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Contraception and Reproductive Health Care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13625187.2023.2242546","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/8/17 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

2022年6月24日,美国最高法院在多布斯诉杰克逊妇女健康组织案中的裁决认为:“宪法没有赋予堕胎权;罗伊和凯西被否决;管理堕胎的权力又回到了人民及其民选代表手中。”自裁决以来,13个州颁布了“触发法”,限制堕胎,除非在特定情况下,例如在医疗紧急情况下挽救孕妇的生命。这些法律不仅不恰当地将国家纳入医患关系,而且使医生面临刑事处罚的风险,从而为他们创造了一个不确定的执业环境。我们通过案例报告文献中的例子说明了孕妇医疗决策的复杂性,并讨论了将“医疗紧急情况”的定义留给法院来决定将如何创建一个拼凑的限制性和许可性标准,将医生定为犯罪,并创建一个“政治护理标准”来取代基于证据的医疗护理。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
The criminalisation of women's healthcare in the post-Dobbs era: an analysis of the anti-abortion trigger law statutes.

On 24 June 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organisation held that:'The Constitution does not confer a right to abortion; Roe and Casey are overruled; and the authority to regulate abortion is returned to the people and their elected representatives.'Since the ruling, thirteen states have enacted 'trigger laws' that restrict access to abortion except in specified circumstances, such as to save the life of the pregnant patient in a medical emergency. These laws not only inappropriately insert the State into the physician-patient relationship, but create an uncertain practice landscape for physicians by placing them at risk of criminal penalties. We illustrate the complexity of medical decision making for pregnant patients using examples from the case report literature, and discuss how leaving the definition of 'medical emergency' up to courts to decide will create a patchwork of restrictive and permissive standards that criminalises physicians and creates a 'political standard of care' that replaces evidence based medical care.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
11.80%
发文量
63
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Official Journal of the European Society of Contraception and Reproductive Health, The European Journal of Contraception and Reproductive Health Care publishes original peer-reviewed research papers as well as review papers and other appropriate educational material.
期刊最新文献
A randomised double-blind trial to determine the bleeding profile of the prolonged-release contraceptive dienogest 2 mg/ethinylestradiol 0.02 mg versus an immediate-release formulation of drospirenone 3 mg/ethinylestradiol 0.02 mg. Medical termination of pregnancy: people's expectations and experiences in the Netherlands. Neighbourhood environment and early menarche among adolescent girls of five countries. Postpartum contraception provision across Europe: preliminary findings from a multi country survey. Response to Daungsupawong and Wiwanitkit's Letter to the Editor.
×
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