• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

为何危机怀孕中心合法却不道德。

Why Crisis Pregnancy Centers Are Legal but Unethical.

作者信息

Bryant Amy G, Swartz Jonas J

机构信息

An assistant professor of obstetrics and gynecology in the Family Planning Division at the University of North Carolina School of Medicine in Chapel Hill.

A clinical fellow in family planning at the University of North Carolina School of Medicine in Chapel Hill.

出版信息

AMA J Ethics. 2018 Mar 1;20(1):269-277. doi: 10.1001/journalofethics.2018.20.3.pfor1-1803.

DOI:10.1001/journalofethics.2018.20.3.pfor1-1803
PMID:29542437
Abstract

Crisis pregnancy centers are organizations that seek to intercept women with unintended pregnancies who might be considering abortion. Their mission is to prevent abortions by persuading women that adoption or parenting is a better option. They strive to give the impression that they are clinical centers, offering legitimate medical services and advice, yet they are exempt from regulatory, licensure, and credentialing oversight that apply to health care facilities. Because the religious ideology of these centers' owners and employees takes priority over the health and well-being of the women seeking care at these centers, women do not receive comprehensive, accurate, evidence-based clinical information about all available options. Although crisis pregnancy centers enjoy First Amendment rights protections, their propagation of misinformation should be regarded as an ethical violation that undermines women's health.

摘要

危机怀孕中心是旨在拦截那些可能考虑堕胎的意外怀孕女性的组织。它们的使命是通过说服女性相信收养或自己抚养是更好的选择来防止堕胎。它们努力给人一种它们是临床中心的印象,提供合法的医疗服务和建议,但它们不受适用于医疗保健机构的监管、许可和资质监督。由于这些中心的所有者和员工的宗教意识形态优先于在这些中心寻求护理的女性的健康和福祉,女性无法获得关于所有可用选择的全面、准确、基于证据的临床信息。尽管危机怀孕中心享有第一修正案赋予的权利保护,但它们传播错误信息的行为应被视为一种损害女性健康的道德违规行为。

相似文献

1
Why Crisis Pregnancy Centers Are Legal but Unethical.为何危机怀孕中心合法却不道德。
AMA J Ethics. 2018 Mar 1;20(1):269-277. doi: 10.1001/journalofethics.2018.20.3.pfor1-1803.
2
Abortion misinformation from crisis pregnancy centers in North Carolina.北卡罗来纳州危机妊娠中心的堕胎错误信息。
Contraception. 2012 Dec;86(6):752-6. doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2012.06.001. Epub 2012 Jul 6.
3
At "Crisis Pregnancy Centers," Critics Say, Ideology Trumps Evidence.批评人士称,在“危机怀孕中心”,意识形态凌驾于证据之上。
JAMA. 2018 Aug 7;320(5):425-427. doi: 10.1001/jama.2018.8661.
4
Factors affecting decision making of low-income young women with unplanned pregnancies in Bangkok, Thailand.影响泰国曼谷意外怀孕低收入年轻女性决策的因素。
Southeast Asian J Trop Med Public Health. 2005 May;36(3):775-82.
5
Crisis Pregnancy Centers: An Inherently Unjust Limitation to Reproductive Rights.危机怀孕中心:对生殖权利的固有不公正限制。
Am J Law Med. 2022 Jul;48(2-3):275-285. doi: 10.1017/amj.2022.28.
6
Women's experiences with unplanned pregnancy and abortion in Kenya: A qualitative study.肯尼亚女性意外怀孕和堕胎经历的质性研究
PLoS One. 2018 Jan 25;13(1):e0191412. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0191412. eCollection 2018.
7
Contraception and abortion in Romania.罗马尼亚的避孕与堕胎
Lancet. 1993 Apr 3;341(8849):875-8. doi: 10.1016/0140-6736(93)93074-b.
8
Family planning issues relating to maternal and infant mortality in the United States.美国与母婴死亡率相关的计划生育问题。
Bull Pan Am Health Organ. 1993;27(2):120-34.
9
Previous induced abortion among young women seeking abortion-related care in Kenya: a cross-sectional analysis.肯尼亚寻求堕胎相关护理的年轻女性既往人工流产情况:一项横断面分析。
BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2016 May 14;16:104. doi: 10.1186/s12884-016-0894-z.
10
Options for women with unintended pregnancy.意外怀孕女性的选择。
Am Fam Physician. 2015 Apr 15;91(8):544-9.

引用本文的文献

1
Self-managed abortions in Ghana: A health policy framework analysis.加纳的自我管理堕胎:一项卫生政策框架分析。
Public Health Chall. 2023 Jun 23;2(2):e101. doi: 10.1002/puh2.101. eCollection 2023 Jun.
2
Spatial Analyses of Crisis Pregnancy Centers and Abortion Facilities in the United States, 2021 (Pre-Dobbs): Cross-Sectional Study.美国 2021 年(多布斯案前)危机怀孕中心和堕胎设施的空间分析:横断面研究。
JMIR Public Health Surveill. 2024 Nov 6;10:e60001. doi: 10.2196/60001.
3
Paging the Clinical Informatics Community: Respond STAT to Dobbs v. Jackson's Women's Health Organization.
呼叫临床信息学界:立即回应多布斯诉杰克逊妇女健康组织案。
Appl Clin Inform. 2023 Jan;14(1):164-171. doi: 10.1055/a-2000-7590. Epub 2022 Dec 19.
4
Maternal and infant health in disasters: Texas's high-risk landscape.灾害中的母婴健康:德克萨斯州的高危状况。
Womens Health (Lond). 2022 Jan-Dec;18:17455057221112289. doi: 10.1177/17455057221112289.
5
Adolescent Access to Federally Funded Clinics Providing Confidential Family Planning Following Changes to Title X Funding Regulations.青少年获得联邦资金资助的诊所提供保密的计划生育服务,这些诊所是根据 Title X 资金法规的变化而设立的。
JAMA Netw Open. 2022 Jun 1;5(6):e2217488. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.17488.
6
The Problems with Crisis Pregnancy Centers: Reviewing the Literature and Identifying New Directions for Future Research.危机怀孕中心的问题:文献综述与未来研究新方向的确定
Int J Womens Health. 2022 Jun 8;14:757-763. doi: 10.2147/IJWH.S288861. eCollection 2022.
7
Comparing Website Identification for Crisis Pregnancy Centers and Abortion Clinics.比较危机怀孕中心和堕胎诊所的网站识别
Womens Health Issues. 2021 Sep-Oct;31(5):432-439. doi: 10.1016/j.whi.2021.06.001. Epub 2021 Jul 12.
8
Factors Associated With Perceived Trust of False Abortion Websites: Cross-sectional Online Survey.与感知虚假人工流产网站可信度相关的因素:横断面在线调查。
J Med Internet Res. 2021 Apr 19;23(4):e25323. doi: 10.2196/25323.
9
A qualitative assessment of structural barriers to prenatal care and congenital syphilis prevention in Kern County, California.加利福尼亚州克恩县产前保健和先天梅毒预防的结构性障碍的定性评估。
PLoS One. 2021 Apr 1;16(4):e0249419. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0249419. eCollection 2021.
10
Pregnancy Centers: A Clear Purpose of Medicine with Coherent Ethics.怀孕咨询中心:具有连贯伦理的明确医学目的。
Linacre Q. 2020 Aug;87(3):334-340. doi: 10.1177/0024363920920397. Epub 2020 May 12.