Management of pregnancies complicated by lethal fetal anomalies is addressed within an ethical framework that provides perinatal palliative care, parental support, and medical management without recourse to induced abortion. The chapter outlines clinical protocols for continuing care that respect fetal life while attending to maternal physical and psychological wellbeing through delivery and bereavement.
how accurate is the Triple Test for Down syndrome, false positive rate of prenatal screening, miscarriage risk of amniocentesis vs CVS, what is perinatal hospice for lethal fetal anomaly, does preimplantation genetic diagnosis improve IVF success, chorionic villus sampling reliability vs amniocentesis, pro-life approach to prenatal diagnosis, what to do after positive Down syndrome screen
Hilgers et al. 2004, Hilgers 2004
Cite this article
Hilgers, T. W. (2004). Chapter 60: Lethal Congenital Anomalies: Prenatal Diagnosis and the Management of Pregnancy. The Medical and Surgical Practice of NaProTECHNOLOGY, 813-824.
Hilgers TW. Chapter 60: Lethal Congenital Anomalies: Prenatal Diagnosis and the Management of Pregnancy. The Medical and Surgical Practice of NaProTECHNOLOGY. 2004:813-824.
Hilgers, T. W. "Chapter 60: Lethal Congenital Anomalies: Prenatal Diagnosis and the Management of Pregnancy." The Medical and Surgical Practice of NaProTECHNOLOGY, 2004, pp. 813-824.
Perinatal palliative care is an emerging concept in fetal medicine that offers quality-of-life options and anticipatory grief management for families of fetuses with complex conditions. Few perinatal palliative care outcomes are detailed in peer-reviewed literature. This study aimed to describe outcomes of perinatal palliative care at the Fetal Center of the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston and Women's Center at Children's Memorial Hermann Hospital. This was a retrospective cohort of families receiving perinatal palliative care for life-limiting fetal diagnosis, such as trisomy 13 or 18 and some major structural anomalies between 2016 and 2020. The primary outcome was whether delivery events matched families' birth plans, including fetal/neonatal clinical course matching expectations described by consultant notes. Secondary outcomes included maternal safety outcomes, use of perinatal interventions, delivery outcomes, and resource utilization outcomes. Of 187 perinatal palliative care consults, delivery events matched families' plans and clinicians' expectations in 89% of cases (165/185); 39% (73/187) of families requested some perinatal interventions, 64% of whom planned postnatal comfort care even while choosing antenatal interventions. Demographics and median income were similar between families who chose some interventions and those who chose comfort care. Patients choosing any interventions had more mismatches between their plans and delivery events (19% vs 2%; P<.001), were more likely to change their plans (24% vs 6%; P=.001), and unsurprisingly used more healthcare resources. They were also more likely to have intraamniotic infection or postpartum hemorrhage (9% vs 22%; P=.02), but this was associated with mode of delivery and not choice of interventions. Most families' perinatal experiences matched birth plans and expectations in this perinatal palliative care program. Families who desired interventions used more healthcare resources, but often did so with plans for postnatal comfort care, demonstrating insight into neonatal prognosis but achieving value-consistent goals, such as meeting a live neonate. Perinatal palliative care was safe for maternal patients and equitable across racial, ethnic, and income groups. Perinatal palliative care and some perinatal interventions are options for care of the whole family in complex fetal medicine cases.
Hilgers TW, 2004·The Medical and Surgical Practice of NaProTECHNOLOGY
Preterm birth remains a leading cause of perinatal mortality, with rates in the United States rising significantly over the latter half of the twentieth century despite decades of awareness. NaProTechnology's integrated prevention approach, developed at the Pope Paul VI Institute, addresses this problem through systematic risk stratification, hormonal support, infection surveillance, and cervical monitoring across the full course of pregnancy.
Mirkes R, 2004·The Medical and Surgical Practice of NaProTECHNOLOGY
The philosophical and ethical foundation of NaProTECHNOLOGY is examined through the lens of a "new humanism" that affirms the dignity of women, couples, and the unborn by working within — rather than against — natural reproductive processes. Hilgers and contributing author Sr. Renee Mirkes situate NaProTECHNOLOGY within a broader critique of technologized reproductive medicine and articulate a coherent framework for procreative ethics applicable to clinical practice.
For many patients with endometriosis, laparoscopic surgery is the most effective treatment to alleviate severe chronic pelvic pain and improve quality of life. Because endometriosis is common among individuals with infertility, surgery is often considered alongside fertility evaluation and treatment to manage symptoms, identify disease pathology, and restore pelvic anatomy. In patients who desire pregnancy, the decision of whether and when to pursue surgery should be guided by clear medical indications and shared decision making between the patient and their obstetrician-gynecologist. In recent months, however, religious and political groups have sought to reframe this medical decision as an ideologic and moral one, advocating for endometriosis surgery in nearly all patients with infertility and claiming that this can eliminate the need for assisted reproductive technologies. This framework, known as restorative reproductive medicine (RRM), aligns with efforts to promote the "personhood" of fertilized eggs, restrict access to in in vitro fertilization (IVF), and advance endometriosis surgery and lifestyle modifications as "root-cause treatment leading to natural fertility." Recent editorials and issue briefs in the obstetrics and gynecology literature have discussed the serious ethical, medical, and policy implications of RRM, yet there remains an urgent need to address specifically the unfounded claims about endometriosis surgery and its purported advantages over assisted reproductive technology. This article examines the social context of this controversy and reviews the current evidence regarding the indications, benefits, and limitations of endometriosis surgery in the management of infertility. In contrast to RRM's assertions, no evidence supports the adoption of endometriosis surgery as a replacement for IVF or as a primary treatment for infertility. Rather, the role of surgery in fertility care is highly nuanced and depends on each patient's clinical presentation, reproductive goals, and personal priorities.