Sartwelle Thomas P, Johnston James C, Arda Berna
Beirne, Maynard and Parsons, LLP, Houston, Texas, United States.
Legal Medicine Consultants, Seattle, Washington, United States.
Surg J (N Y). 2015 Nov 20;1(1):e28-e34. doi: 10.1055/s-0035-1567880. eCollection 2015 Dec.
Electronic fetal monitoring (EFM) entered clinical medical practice at the same time bioethics became reality. Bioethics changed the medical ethics landscape by replacing the traditional Hippocratic benign paternalism with patient autonomy, informed consent, beneficence, and nonmaleficence. But EFM use represents the polar opposite of bioethics' revered principles-it has been documented for half a century to be completely ineffectual, used without informed consent, and harmful to mothers and newborns alike. Despite EFM's ethical misuse, there has been no outcry from the bioethical world. Why? This article answers that question, discussing EFM's history and the reasons it was issued an ethics pass. And it explores the reason that even today mothers are still treated with blatant medical paternalism, deprived of autonomy and informed consent, and subjected to real medical risks under the guise that EFM is an essential safety device when in fact it is used almost solely to protect physicians and hospitals from cerebral palsy lawsuits.
电子胎儿监护(EFM)在生物伦理学成为现实的同时进入了临床医学实践。生物伦理学通过用患者自主权、知情同意、行善和不伤害原则取代传统的希波克拉底式善意家长主义,改变了医学伦理格局。但EFM的使用代表了与生物伦理学备受推崇的原则截然相反的情况——半个世纪以来的记录表明它完全无效,在未经知情同意的情况下被使用,并且对母亲和新生儿都有害。尽管EFM在伦理上被滥用,但生物伦理学界却没有发出抗议声。为什么呢?本文回答了这个问题,讨论了EFM的历史以及它获得伦理通行证的原因。并且探讨了即使在今天,母亲们仍然受到公然的医学家长主义对待的原因,她们被剥夺了自主权和知情同意权,并在EFM是一种基本安全设备的幌子下面临真正的医疗风险,而实际上它几乎仅仅是为了保护医生和医院免受脑瘫诉讼。