Cuttini Marina, Habiba Marwan, Nilstun Tore, Donfrancesco Silvia, Garel Micheline, Arnaud Catherine, Bleker Otto, Da Frè Monica, Gomez Manuel Marin, Heyl Wolfgang, Marsal Karel, Saracci Rodolfo
Unit of Epidemiology, Ospedale Pediatrico Bambino Gesù, Roma, Italy.
Obstet Gynecol. 2006 Nov;108(5):1121-9. doi: 10.1097/01.AOG.0000239123.10646.4c.
To compare the attitudes of a large sample of obstetricians from eight European countries toward a competent woman's refusal to consent to an emergency cesarean delivery for acute fetal distress.
Obstetricians' attitudes in response to a hypothetical clinical case were surveyed through an anonymous, self-administered questionnaire. The sample included 1,530 obstetricians (response rate 77%) from 105 maternity units (response rate 70%) in eight countries: France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom.
In every country, the majority of obstetricians would keep trying to persuade the woman, telling her that failure to perform cesarean delivery might result in the fetus surviving with disability, or even that her own life might be endangered. In Spain, France, Italy, and, to a lesser extent, Germany and Luxembourg, a consistent proportion of physicians would seek a court order to protect fetal welfare or avoid possible legal liability or both. In the United Kingdom, Sweden, and Netherlands, several respondents (59%, 41%, and 37%, respectively) would accept the woman's decision and assist vaginal delivery. Only a small minority (from 0 in the United Kingdom to 10% in France) would proceed with cesarean delivery without a court order.
Case law arising from a few countries (United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom) and professional guidelines favoring women's autonomy have not solved the underlying ethical conflict, and in Europe acceptance of a woman's right to refuse cesarean delivery, at least in emergency situations, is not uniform. Differing attitudes between obstetricians from the eight countries may reflect diverse legal and ethical environments.
III.
比较来自八个欧洲国家的大量产科医生对有行为能力的女性拒绝同意因急性胎儿窘迫而行急诊剖宫产的态度。
通过一份匿名的自填式问卷,调查产科医生对一个假设临床病例的态度。样本包括来自八个国家(法国、德国、意大利、卢森堡、荷兰、西班牙、瑞典和英国)105个产科单位的1530名产科医生(回复率77%),这些产科单位的回复率为70%。
在每个国家,大多数产科医生都会一直试图说服该女性,告诉她不进行剖宫产可能会导致胎儿存活但有残疾,甚至她自己的生命可能会受到威胁。在西班牙、法国、意大利,以及在较小程度上的德国和卢森堡,有一定比例的医生会寻求法院命令以保护胎儿福利或避免可能的法律责任,或两者兼而有之。在英国、瑞典和荷兰,一些受访者(分别为59%、41%和37%)会接受该女性的决定并协助经阴道分娩。只有极少数人(从英国的0到法国的10%)会在没有法院命令的情况下进行剖宫产。
一些国家(美国、加拿大和英国)产生的判例法以及支持女性自主权的专业指南并未解决潜在的伦理冲突,而且在欧洲,至少在紧急情况下,对女性拒绝剖宫产权利的接受并不统一。八个国家产科医生之间不同的态度可能反映了不同的法律和伦理环境。
III级