One of the most challenging scenarios in obstetric care occurs when a pregnant patient refuses recommended medical treatment that aims to support her well-being, her fetus's well-being, or both. In such circumstances, the obstetrician-gynecologist's ethical obligation to safeguard the pregnant woman's autonomy may conflict with the ethical desire to optimize the health of the fetus. Forced compliance-the alternative to respecting a patient's refusal of treatment-raises profoundly important issues about patient rights, respect for autonomy, violations of bodily integrity, power differentials, and gender equality. The purpose of this document is to provide obstetrician-gynecologists with an ethical approach to addressing a pregnant woman's decision to refuse recommended medical treatment that recognizes the centrality of the pregnant woman's decisional authority and the interconnection between the pregnant woman and the fetus.
Meeting the ethical obligations of informed consent requires that an obstetrician-gynecologist gives the patient adequate, accurate, and understandable information and requires that the patient has the ability to understand and reason through this information and is free to ask questions and to make an intentional and voluntary choice, which may include refusal of care or treatment. Shared decision making is a patient-centered, individualized approach to the informed consent process that involves discussion of the benefits and risks of available treatment options in the context of a patient's values and priorities. Some informed consent challenges are universal to medicine, whereas other challenges arise more commonly in the practice of obstetrics and gynecology than in other specialty areas. This Committee Opinion focuses on informed consent for adult patients in clinical practice and provides new guidance on the practical application of informed consent through shared decision making. The principles outlined in this Committee Opinion will help support the obstetrician-gynecologist in the patient-centered informed consent process.
Peipert et al. (1) claim that restorative reproductive medicine (RRM) originated as a political and religious movement with the purpose to limit access to in vitro fertilization (IVF). In so doing, they mischaracterize the origin, development, and aims of RRM, as articulated by the International Institute for Restorative Reproductive Medicine, founded in 2000. They do not refer to any peer-reviewed medical literature published by clinicians and researchers working to develop RRM. Objecting that certain political or economic interests promote RRM (or, alternatively, IVF) does not constitute the basis for an evidence-based scientific critique or discussion. Thus, their editorial falls short of a serious effort to understand RRM scientifically.
Neural tube defects are among the most common congenital malformations in the US, with an estimated 3000 pregnancies affected each year. Many of these neural tube defects are caused by low folate levels in the body. The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) commissioned a reaffirmation evidence update on the benefits and harms of folic acid supplementation. Population: Persons who are planning to or could become pregnant.Evidence AssessmentThe USPSTF concludes that, for persons who are planning to or could become pregnant, there is high certainty that folic acid supplementation has a substantial net benefit to prevent neural tube defects in their offspring.RecommendationThe USPSTF recommends that all persons planning to or who could become pregnant take a daily supplement containing 0.4 to 0.8 mg (400 to 800 μg) of folic acid. (A recommendation)
Segarra I et al., 2023·Front Med (Lausanne)·
Open Access
Hormone-based contraception disrupts hormonal balance, creating artificial states of anovulation and threatening women's health. We reviewed its main adverse effects and mechanisms on accelerated ovarian aging, mental health (emotional disruptions, depression, and suicide), sexuality (reduced libido), cardiovascular (brain stroke, myocardial infarction, hypertension, and thrombosis), and oncological (breast, cervical, and endometrial cancers). Other "collateral damage" includes negative effects on communication, scientific mistrust, poor physician-patient relationships, increased patient burden, economic drain on the healthcare system, and environmental pollution. Hormone-sensitive tumors present a dilemma owing to their potential dual effects: preventing some cancers vs. higher risk for others remains controversial, with denial or dismissal as non-relevant adverse effects, information avoidance, and modification of scientific criteria. This lack of clinical assessment poses challenges to women's health and their right to autonomy. Overcoming these challenges requires an anthropological integration of sexuality, as the focus on genital bodily union alone fails to encompass the intimate relational expression of individuals, complete sexual satisfaction, and the intertwined feelings of trust, safety, tenderness, and endorsement of women's femininity.