Advertisement

Professional Responsibility for the Welfare of Potential Life

  • George A. Huber
  • Kathleen R. Negley
  • Loren H. Roth

Abstract

Most physicians who treat women are, from time to time, confronted with pregnant patients whose treatment will affect the welfare of the patient, the fetus, or both. Treatment may or may not be lifesaving for the mother and thereby only indirectly involve the fetus, or the treatment may directly involve the fetus, requiring invasive diagnostic or therapeutic procedures. The patient may or may not agree with either type of treatment. Also, during the course of assessment or treatment, the physician may discover that certain maternal activities are potentially injurious to the fetus, for example, substance abuse or self-mutilation. Finally, there is a growing concern about the care of patients who are not pregnant but who have the potential for becoming so and about new societal trends in surrogate parenting and in vitro fertilization.

Keywords

Professional Responsibility Unborn Child Medical Malpractice Potential Life Viable Fetus 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Curran WJ: An historical perspective on the law of personality and status with special regard to the human fetus and the rights of women. Milbank Memorial Fund Quarterly I Health and Society 61: 59–61, 1983.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Curran WJ: An historical perspective on the law of personality and status with special regard to the human fetus and the rights of women. Milbank Memorial Fund Quarterly ¡Health and Society 61: 61–63, 1983.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Curran WJ: An historical perspective on the law of personality and status with special regard to the human fetus and the rights of women. Milbank Memorial Fund Quarterly I Health and Society 61: 65–66, 1983.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Curran WJ: An historical perspective on the law of personality and status with special regard to the human fetus and the rights of women. Milbank Memorial Fund Quarterly I Health and Society 61: 69, 1983.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Roe v Wade, 410 US 113, 1973.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Callahan D: How technology is reframing the abortion debate. Hastings Center Report, February 1986, pp 33–42.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Thornburgh v American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, No 84–495, 1986.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hoerner v Bertinato, 67 NJ Super 517, 171 A2d 140, 1961.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Raleigh Fitkin-Paul Moran Memorial Hospital v Anderson, 42 NJ 421, 201 A2d 537, 1964.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jefferson v Griffin Spalding County Hospital Authority, 247 Ga 86, 274 SE2d 457, 1981.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Taft v Taft, 338 Mass 331, 446 NE2d 395, 1983.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Soloff P, Jewel S, Roth L: Civil commitment and the rights of the unborn. American Journal of Psychiatry 136: 114–115, 1979.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mental Health Procedures Act, 1976, Public Law 817, No 143.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Reyes v Superior Court, 75 Cal App 3d, 214, 141 Cal Rptr 912, 1977.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Baby X, 97 Mich App III, 293 NW2d 736, 1980.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Shaw MW: Conditional prospective rights of the fetus. The Journal of Legal Medicine, 5: 63–116, 1984.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mackenzie RB, Collins MN, Popkin ME: A case of fetal abuse? American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 52: 699–703, 1982.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Public Law 93-247, Subsection 3, 88 Stat 5, codified at 42 US 5102 Supplement V, 1977.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    21 USC1175; 42 CFR 213, 1979.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Baby X, 97 Mich App III, 293 NW2d 736, 1980.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Landeros v Flood, 131 Cal 69, 551 P2d 389, 1976.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Grodin v Grodin, 301 NW2d 869, 1980.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Feinberg et al: Obstetrics/gynecology and the law. Health Administration Press, Michigan, 1984, pp 92–108.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Feinberg et al: Obstetrics/gynecology and the law. Health Administration Press, Michigan, 1984, pp 92–108.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Blash v Glisson, 325 SE2d 607, Ga Ct App, Nov 20, 1984; cert denied, Ga Sup Ct, Jan 30, 1985.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Naccash v Burger, 233 Va 491, 290 SE2d 825, 1982. Jorgenson v Meade-Johnson Laboratories, 483 F2d 237, 10th Circuit, 1973; Jacobs v Theimer, 519 SW2d 846, Texas Super 1975; Berman v Allan, 80 NJ 421, 404 A2d 8, 1979.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Naccash v Burger, 233 VA 491, 290 SE2d 825, 1982.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Jacobs v Theimer, 519 SW2d 846, Texas Super 1975.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Wells v Orthopharmaceutical Corp, No C82-1921A, District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, July 29, 1985.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Berman v Allan, 80 JN 421, 404 A2d 8, 1979.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Procanik v Cillo, 97 NJ 339, 478 A2d 755, 1984; Schroeder v Perkel, 87 NJ 53, 432 A2d 834, 1981.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Turpin v Sortini, 31 Cal 3d 220, 182 Cal Rptr 337, 643 P2d 954, 1982.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Turpin v Sortini, 31 Cal 3d 220, 182 Cal Rptr 337, 643 P2d 954, 1982; Renslow v Mennonite Hospital, 67 111 2d 348, 367 NE2d 1250, 1977, affirming 351 NE2d 870, 1976; Schroeder v Perkel, 87 NJ 53, 432 A2d 834, 1981.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Renslow v Mennonite Hospital, 67 111 2d 348, 367 NE2d 1250, 1977, affirming 351 NE2d 870, 1976.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Coplan J: Wrongful life and wrongful death: New concepts for the pediatrician. Pediatrics 75: 65–72, 1985.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Feinberg et al : Obstetrics/gynecology and the law. Health Administration Press, Michigan, 1984, pp 92–108.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Christafogeorges v Brandenburg, 55 111 2d 368, 304 NE2d 88, 1973; Vaillancourt v Medical Center Hospital, 425 A2d 92, Vt 1980; Mone v Greyhound lines, Inc, 331 NE2d 916, Mass 1975; Hopkins v McBane, No 10, 697, ND Supreme Court, 1984; Werling v Sandy et al, No 84-814, Ohio Supreme Court, 1985. Summerfield v Superior Court of the State of Arizona, No 17607-SA, Arizona Supreme Court, 1985.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Werling v Sandy et al, No 84-814, Ohio Supreme Court, 1985.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Mone v Greyhound Lines, Inc, 331 NE2d 916, Mass 1975.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Tort recovery granted to stillborn. Pennsylvania Law Journal-Reporter, 8, 1985.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    White v Yup, 85 Nev 527, 458 P2d 617, 1969.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Presby v Newport Hospital, 117 RI 177, 365 A2d 748, 1976; Toth v Goree, 65 Mich App 296, 237 NW2d 297, 1975.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Roth LH, Appelbaum PS, Lidz CW, et al: Informed consent in psychiatric research, in: Mental Health Law and Developments in the 1980s. New York, Guilford Press, 1985.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1988

Authors and Affiliations

  • George A. Huber
    • 1
  • Kathleen R. Negley
    • 1
  • Loren H. Roth
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Psychiatry, Western Psychiatric Institute and ClinicUniversity of PittsburghUSA

Personalised recommendations