Pediatric Radiology

, Volume 40, Issue 4, pp 514–517 | Cite as

The intersection of ethics and communication in prenatal imaging: challenges for the pediatric radiologist

Review

Abstract

Pediatric radiologists who practice prenatal imaging are often at the front lines of communication with pregnant patients and their partners. The communication process is particularly complex when a fetal abnormality is diagnosed. Regardless of whether the information is completely new and unexpected, or the patient is referred for tertiary imaging and counseling, few pediatric radiologists are trained specifically in the communication skills necessary to provide optimal care to the prospective parents. This paper reviews current literature regarding communication with patients about unexpected or difficult information, and illustrates key clinical and ethical features that make conversations with pregnant patients particularly challenging in the setting of fetal abnormalities.

Keywords

Communication Bad news Prenatal diagnosis Congenital abnormalities Ethics 

References

  1. 1.
    McGuigan D (2009) Communicating bad news to patients: a reflective approach. Nurs Stand 23:51–56PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    VandeKieft GK (2001) Breaking bad news. Am Fam Physician 64:1975–1978PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Berlin L (2002) Communicating findings of radiologic examinations: whither goest the radiologist’s duty? AJR 178:809–815PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brem RF, Sanchez JL, Rapelyea JA (2009) Breaking bad news in breast imaging: a critical component of patient care. Acad Radiol 16:121–122CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Adler DD, Riba MB, Eggly S (2009) Breaking bad news in the breast imaging setting. Acad Radiol 16:130–135CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ptacek JT, Eberhardt TL (1996) Breaking bad news. A review of the literature. JAMA 276:496–502CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ptacek JT, McIntosh EG (2009) Physician challenges in communicating bad news. J Behav Med 32:380–387CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Arnold SJ, Koczwara B (2006) Breaking bad news: learning through experience. J Clin Oncol 24:5098–5100CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gunderman RB (2001) Patient communication: what to teach radiology residents. AJR 177:41–43PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Limperopoulos C, Robertson RL Jr, Khwaja OS et al (2008) How accurately does current fetal imaging identify posterior fossa anomalies? AJR 190:1637–1643CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gilmore JH, Smith LC, Wolfe HM et al (2008) Prenatal mild ventriculomegaly predicts abnormal development of the neonatal brain. Biol Psychiatry 64:1069–1076CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kleinman CS (2006) Fetal cardiac intervention: innovative therapy or a technique in search of an indication? Circulation 113:1378–1381CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Friedman S, Chen C, Chapman JS et al (2008) Neurodevelopmental outcomes of congenital diaphragmatic hernia survivors followed in a multidisciplinary clinic at ages 1 and 3. J Pediatr Surg 43:1035–1043CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Simpson JM (2009) Fetal cardiac interventions: worth it? Heart 95:1653–1655CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Chescheir NC (2009) Maternal-fetal surgery: where are we and how did we get here? Obstet Gynecol 113:717–731PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kon AA, Ackerson L, Lo B (2004) How pediatricians counsel parents when no “best-choice” management exists: lessons to be learned from hypoplastic left heart syndrome. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 158:436–441CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gardiner HM (2009) The case for fetal cardiac intervention. Heart 95:1648–1652CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Aguilera S, Soothill P, Denbow M et al (2009) Prognosis of spina bifida in the era of prenatal diagnosis and termination of pregnancy. Fetal Diagn Ther 26:68–74CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Stege G, Fenton A, Jaffray B (2003) Nihilism in the 1990s: the true mortality of congenital diaphragmatic hernia. Pediatrics 112:532–535CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Liu S, Joseph KS, Kramer MS et al (2002) Relationship of prenatal diagnosis and pregnancy termination to overall infant mortality in Canada. JAMA 287:1561–1567CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Peller AJ, Westgate MN, Holmes LB (2004) Trends in congenital malformations, 1974–1999: effect of prenatal diagnosis and elective termination. Obstet Gynecol 104:957–964PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Tworetzky W, McElhinney DB, Reddy VM et al (2001) Improved surgical outcome after fetal diagnosis of hypoplastic left heart syndrome. Circulation 103:1269–1273PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Casper M (1998) The making of the unborn patient: a social anatomy of fetal surgery. Rutgers University Press, New BrunswickGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Asch A, Wasserman D (2009) Informed consent and prenatal testing: the Kennedy–Brownback Act. Virtual Mentor 11:721–724Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Brown SD (2008) The “fetus as patient”: a critique. Am J Bioeth 8:47–50, discussion W4–6PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Brown SD, Lyerly AD, Little MO et al (2008) Paediatrics-based fetal care: unanswered ethical questions. Acta Paediatr 97:1617–1619CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Brown SD, Truog RD, Johnson JA et al (2006) Do differences in the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists positions on the ethics of maternal-fetal interventions reflect subtly divergent professional sensitivities to pregnant women and fetuses? Pediatrics 117:1382–1387CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Parens E, Asch A (2003) Disability rights critique of prenatal genetic testing: reflections and recommendations. Ment Retard Dev Disabil Res Rev 9:40–47CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of RadiologyChildren’s Hospital Boston and Harvard Medical SchoolBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations