The Two Front War on Reproductive Rights-When the Right to Abortion is Banned, Can the Right to Refuse Obstetrical Interventions Be Far behind?

The loss of the federally protected constitutional right to an abortion is a threat to the already tenuous autonomy of pregnant people, and may augur future challenges to their right to refuse unwanted obstetric interventions. Even before Roe's demise, pregnancy led to constraints on autonomy evidenced by clinician-led legal incursions against patients who refused obstetric interventions. In Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, the Supreme Court found that the right to liberty espoused in the Constitution does not extend to a pregnant person's right to an abortion. With Roe's demise, the right to request specific types of care has been vitiated. The same argument underpinning that holding may now become ballast for attacks on the traditionally more robust right, the right to refuse. Here we discuss how the elevation of fetal and embryonic rights may lead to a cascade of medical intrusions and deprivations of liberty against pregnant persons, and offer an argument opposing these improprieties.

Effect of a Moral Distress Consultation Service on Moral Distress, Empowerment, and a Healthy Work Environment.

BACKGROUND:  Healthcare providers who are accountable for patient care safety and quality but who are not empowered to actualize them experience moral distress. Interventions to mitigate moral distress in the healthcare organization are needed. OBJECTIVE:  To evaluate the effect on moral distress and clinician empowerment of an established, health-system-wide intervention, Moral Distress Consultation. METHODS:  A quasi-experimental, mixed methods study using pre/post surveys, structured interviews, and evaluation of consult themes was used. Consults were requested by staff when moral distress was present. The purpose of consultation is to identify the causes of moral distress, barriers to action, and strategies to improve the situation. Intervention participants were those who attended a moral distress consult. Control participants were staff surveyed prior to the consult. Interviews were conducted after the consult with willing participants and unit managers. Moral distress was measured using the Moral Distress Thermometer. Empowerment was measured using the Global Empowerment Scale. RESULTS:  Twenty-one consults were conducted. Analysis included 116 intervention and 30 control surveys, and 11 interviews. A small but significant decrease was found among intervention participants, especially intensive care staff. Empowerment was unchanged. Interview themes support the consult service as an effective mode for open discussion of difficult circumstances and an important aspect of a healthy work environment. CONCLUSIONS:  Moral distress consultation is an organization-wide mechanism for addressing moral distress. Consultation does not resolve moral distress but helps staff identify strategies to improve the situation. Further studies including follow up may elucidate consultation effectiveness.

Responding to patient requests for women obstetrician-gynecologists.

Patients may request care from a woman obstetrician-gynecologist for various reasons, including privacy concerns, religious or cultural reasons, and in some cases, a history of abuse. They should be given the opportunity to voice their reasons for requesting a woman obstetrician-gynecologist but should not be compelled to do so. Respect for patient autonomy is a compelling reason to consider honoring a patient's gender-based request. When a patient requests a woman obstetrician-gynecologist, efforts should be made to accommodate the request if possible. However, medical professionals and institutions are not ethically obligated to have a woman obstetrician-gynecologist on call or to make one available at all times. If it is not feasible for a woman obstetrician-gynecologist to provide care because of staffing or other system constraints or patient safety concerns, accommodation is not required, and physicians do not have an overriding responsibility to ensure that patients receive gender-concordant care. Patients have the right to decline care and may choose to seek care elsewhere if their requested healthcare provider type is not available. Institutions and medical clinics should have policies and procedures in place for managing patient requests for women obstetrician-gynecologists, and patients should be made aware of these policies preemptively. These policies and procedures should include information about whom to contact for assistance and how to document the encounter. They should also be accessible and familiar to physicians and trainees. Care should be taken to ensure that adequate educational opportunities in obstetrics and gynecology are available for all medical trainees, regardless of gender.

Beyond Abortion: The Consequences of Overturning Roe.

The upcoming U.S. Supreme Court decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization has the potential to eliminate or severely restrict access to legal abortion care in the United States. We address the impact that the decision could have on abortion access and its consequences beyond abortion care. We posit that an abortion ban would, in effect, mean that anyone who becomes pregnant, including those who continue a pregnancy and give birth to healthy newborns and those with pregnancy complications or adverse pregnancy outcomes will become newly vulnerable to legal surveillance, civil detentions, forced interventions, and criminal prosecution. The harms imposed by banning or severely restricting abortion access will disproportionately affect persons of color and perpetuate structural racism. We caution that focusing on Roe as a decision that only protects ending a pregnancy ignores the protection that the decision also affords people who want to continue their pregnancies. It overlooks the ways in which overturning Roe will curtail fundamental rights for all those who become pregnant and will undermine their status as full persons meriting Constitutional protections. Such a singular focus inevitably obscures the common ground that people across the ideological spectrum might inhabit to ensure the safety, health, humanity, and rights of all people who experience pregnancy.

Who will receive the last ventilator: why COVID-19 policies should not prioritise healthcare workers.

Policies promoted and adopted for allocating ventilators during the COVID-19 pandemic have often prioritised healthcare workers or other essential workers. While the need for such policies has so far been largely averted, renewed stress on health systems from continuing surges, as well as the experience of allocating another scarce resource-vaccination-counsel revisiting the justifications for such prioritisation. Prioritising healthcare workers may have intuitive appeal, but the ethical justifications for doing so and the potential harms that could follow require careful analysis. Ethical justifications commonly offered for healthcare worker prioritisation for ventilators rest on two social value criteria: (1) instrumental value, also known as the 'multiplier effect', which may preserve the ability of healthcare workers to help others, and (2) reciprocity, which rewards past usefulness or sacrifice. We argue that these justifications are insufficient to over-ride the common moral commitment to value each person's life equally. Institutional policies prioritising healthcare workers over other patients also violate other ethical norms of the healthcare professions, including the commitment to put patients first. Furthermore, policy decisions to prioritise healthcare workers for ventilators could engender or deepen existing distrust of the clinicians, hospitals and health systems where those policies exist, even if they are never invoked.

Defining Futile and Potentially Inappropriate Interventions: A Policy Statement From the Society of Critical Care Medicine Ethics Committee.

OBJECTIVES: The Society of Critical Care Medicine and four other major critical care organizations have endorsed a seven-step process to resolve disagreements about potentially inappropriate treatments. The multiorganization statement (entitled: An official ATS/AACN/ACCP/ESICM/SCCM Policy Statement: Responding to Requests for Potentially Inappropriate Treatments in Intensive Care Units) provides examples of potentially inappropriate treatments; however, no clear definition is provided. This statement was developed to provide a clear definition of inappropriate interventions in the ICU environment. DESIGN: A subcommittee of the Society of Critical Care Medicine Ethics Committee performed a systematic review of empirical research published in peer-reviewed journals as well as professional organization position statements to generate recommendations. Recommendations approved by consensus of the full Society of Critical Care Medicine Ethics Committees and the Society of Critical Care Medicine Council were included in the statement. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: ICU interventions should generally be considered inappropriate when there is no reasonable expectation that the patient will improve sufficiently to survive outside the acute care setting, or when there is no reasonable expectation that the patient's neurologic function will improve sufficiently to allow the patient to perceive the benefits of treatment. This definition should not be considered exhaustive; there will be cases in which life-prolonging interventions may reasonably be considered inappropriate even when the patient would survive outside the acute care setting with sufficient cognitive ability to perceive the benefits of treatment. When patients or surrogate decision makers demand interventions that the clinician believes are potentially inappropriate, the seven-step process presented in the multiorganization statement should be followed. Clinicians should recognize the limits of prognostication when evaluating potential neurologic outcome and terminal cases. At times, it may be appropriate to provide time-limited ICU interventions to patients if doing so furthers the patient's reasonable goals of care. If the patient is experiencing pain or suffering, treatment to relieve pain and suffering is always appropriate. CONCLUSIONS: The Society of Critical Care Medicine supports the seven-step process presented in the multiorganization statement. This statement provides added guidance to clinicians in the ICU environment.

Fetal Risks, Relative Risks, and Relatives' Risks.

Several factors related to fetal risk render it more or less acceptable in justifying constraints on the behavior of pregnant women. Risk is an unavoidable part of pregnancy and childbirth, one that women must balance against other vital personal and family interests. Two particular issues relate to the fairness of claims that pregnant women are never entitled to put their fetuses at risk: relative risks and relatives' risks. The former have been used-often spuriously-to advance arguments against activities, such as home birth, that may incur risk; the latter implicate the nature of relationships in determining the acceptability of coercing or precluding activities. Motivated reasoning by clinicians and judges leads to inaccurate risk assessments, and judgments based on false claims to objectivity. Such judgments undermine the moral and legal standing of pregnant women and do not advance the interests of fetuses, pregnant women, families, or states.

The Paradigm of the Paradox: Women, Pregnant Women, and the Unequal Burdens of the Zika Virus Pandemic.

The Zika pandemic provides biomedical scientists, clinicians, public health advocates, and governments a unique opportunity to advance reproductive justice by addressing the paradoxes outlined in this essay. The circumstances in which pregnancies occur are morally relevant to women's reproductive life decisions, to the provision of reproductive health care, and to the development of reproductive health policy. Whether the Zika pandemic might foster context-driven reproductive pandemic planning and response is yet to be determined. Maintaining the status quo will surely increase a range of global health disparities and further stratify reproduction, producing predictable and preventable outcomes in which some people receive the necessary care and resources to achieve family building while others are neglected. Women and men should be able to count on biomedical researchers to answer the questions that need answering without undue influence from political agendas. Women should be able to continue pregnancies and count on public health assistance and help for children with Zika-related disabilities, or prevent or end a Zika-affected pregnancy. Pandemic responses that don't further these ends are morally unacceptable.

Sexual & reproductive health information on minor consent forms for pubertal suppression and gender affirming hormones.

Introduction: Transgender and Nonbinary (TNB) youth need specialized sexual and reproductive health (SRH) information and counseling. One avenue for providing this information is the use of informed consent documents before initiating pubertal suppression (PS) and/or gender-affirming hormones (GAHs). This study aims to compare the type and amount of SRH information included on informed consent documents used across clinical sites providing PS and GAH to youth. Methods: As part of a larger, IRB-approved survey on informed consent, providers of gender-related care to youth uploaded informed consent forms used in clinical practice. Publicly available forms were also included in analysis. Content analysis of these forms was undertaken using published clinical guidelines to inform coding and reflect the SRH implications of starting PS and GAH. Results: 21 unique consent documents were included in the content analysis (PS = 7, Masculinizing = 7, Feminizing = 7). SRH information on consent documents fell into 4 broad categories: (1) changes in sexual organs and functioning; (2) pregnancy and fertility information; (3) cancer risk; and (4) sexually transmitted infections. Forms varied considerably in the level of detail included about these SRH topics and most forms included implicit or explicit acknowledgement of the uncertainty that exists around certain SRH outcomes for TNB youth. Conclusions: There was substantial variability in both SRH content and context across consent forms. The role of consent forms in fostering TNB youth's understanding of complex SHR information when initiating PS and GAHs needs further clarification and development. Future research should focus on ways to ensure provision of adequate SRH information for TNB youth.

Social justice in pandemic preparedness.

Pandemic influenza planning in the United States violates the demands of social justice in 2 fundamental respects: it embraces the neutrality of procedural justice at the expense of more substantive concern with health disparities, thus perpetuating a predictable and preventable social injustice, and it fails to move beyond lament to practical planning for alleviating barriers to accessing care. A pragmatic social justice approach, addressing both health disparities and access barriers, should inform pandemic preparedness. Achieving social justice goals in pandemic response is challenging, but strategies are available to overcome the obstacles. The public engagement process of one state's pandemic ethics project influenced the development of these strategies.