罗伊诉韦德案被推翻后 170 名产科医生/妇科医生关于堕胎的声明》。

IF 0.5 4区 医学 Q3 LAW Issues in Law & Medicine Pub Date : 2024-01-01 DOI:10.70257/SFEV5216
Christina Cirucci, Michael Valley
{"title":"罗伊诉韦德案被推翻后 170 名产科医生/妇科医生关于堕胎的声明》。","authors":"Christina Cirucci, Michael Valley","doi":"10.70257/SFEV5216","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In a recent American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 900 professors submitted a Special Report calling for reinstating federal protection for abortion. Here, we provide an alternative consensus statement. Induced abortion is not a constitutional right. We, too, value patient autonomy, but autonomy does not allow for causing harm to another human being, in this case, the human fetus. We share concern about maternal mortality in the United States, but evidence shows that induced abortion increases, not decreases, maternal mortality. We share the authors' concern for the effect of induced abortion on minority populations and mourn the fact that the abortion rate in non-Hispanic black patients is three times that of non-Hispanic white patients and twice that of Hispanic patients. Many obstetricians/gynecologists, like ourselves, do not support abortion, and most obstetricians/gynecologists do not perform abortions. Induced abortion is not necessary to provide evidence-based care. We also have seen tragic situations and misinformation and want to work toward addressing these issues. We support the highest level of clinical practice, bodily autonomy, reproductive freedom, and evidence-based care for both our patients-the pregnant woman and the human being in utero-whom we have dedicated our lives to serving.</p>","PeriodicalId":48665,"journal":{"name":"Issues in Law & Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Statement on Abortion by 170 Obstetricians/Gynecologists after the Reversal of Roe v Wade.\",\"authors\":\"Christina Cirucci, Michael Valley\",\"doi\":\"10.70257/SFEV5216\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>In a recent American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 900 professors submitted a Special Report calling for reinstating federal protection for abortion. Here, we provide an alternative consensus statement. Induced abortion is not a constitutional right. We, too, value patient autonomy, but autonomy does not allow for causing harm to another human being, in this case, the human fetus. We share concern about maternal mortality in the United States, but evidence shows that induced abortion increases, not decreases, maternal mortality. We share the authors' concern for the effect of induced abortion on minority populations and mourn the fact that the abortion rate in non-Hispanic black patients is three times that of non-Hispanic white patients and twice that of Hispanic patients. Many obstetricians/gynecologists, like ourselves, do not support abortion, and most obstetricians/gynecologists do not perform abortions. Induced abortion is not necessary to provide evidence-based care. We also have seen tragic situations and misinformation and want to work toward addressing these issues. We support the highest level of clinical practice, bodily autonomy, reproductive freedom, and evidence-based care for both our patients-the pregnant woman and the human being in utero-whom we have dedicated our lives to serving.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48665,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Issues in Law & Medicine\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Issues in Law & Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.70257/SFEV5216\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Issues in Law & Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.70257/SFEV5216","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

摘要

在最近的《美国妇产科杂志》上,900 名教授提交了一份特别报告,呼吁恢复联邦对堕胎的保护。在此,我们提供另一份共识声明。人工流产不是一项宪法权利。我们也重视病人的自主权,但自主权不允许伤害他人,这里指的是胎儿。我们同样关注美国的孕产妇死亡率,但有证据表明,人工流产会增加而非降低孕产妇死亡率。我们与作者一样关注人工流产对少数群体的影响,并对非西班牙裔黑人患者的人工流产率是非西班牙裔白人患者的三倍、西班牙裔患者的两倍这一事实表示哀悼。许多妇产科医生和我们一样不支持人工流产,大多数妇产科医生也不实施人工流产。提供循证护理并不需要人工流产。我们也看到了悲剧性的情况和错误的信息,并希望努力解决这些问题。我们支持最高水平的临床实践、身体自主权、生殖自由,以及为我们的患者--孕妇和子宫内的胎儿--提供循证护理,我们毕生致力于为他们服务。
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
A Statement on Abortion by 170 Obstetricians/Gynecologists after the Reversal of Roe v Wade.

In a recent American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 900 professors submitted a Special Report calling for reinstating federal protection for abortion. Here, we provide an alternative consensus statement. Induced abortion is not a constitutional right. We, too, value patient autonomy, but autonomy does not allow for causing harm to another human being, in this case, the human fetus. We share concern about maternal mortality in the United States, but evidence shows that induced abortion increases, not decreases, maternal mortality. We share the authors' concern for the effect of induced abortion on minority populations and mourn the fact that the abortion rate in non-Hispanic black patients is three times that of non-Hispanic white patients and twice that of Hispanic patients. Many obstetricians/gynecologists, like ourselves, do not support abortion, and most obstetricians/gynecologists do not perform abortions. Induced abortion is not necessary to provide evidence-based care. We also have seen tragic situations and misinformation and want to work toward addressing these issues. We support the highest level of clinical practice, bodily autonomy, reproductive freedom, and evidence-based care for both our patients-the pregnant woman and the human being in utero-whom we have dedicated our lives to serving.

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
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