Permanent Sterilization in Nulliparous Patients: Is Legislative Anxiety an Indication for Surgery?

AbstractThe Supreme Court's Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization decision, first leaked to the public on 2 May 2022 and officially released on 24 June 2022, overturned Roe v. Wade and thereby determined that abortion is no longer a federally protected right under the Constitution. Instead, the decision gives individual states the right to regulate abortion. Since the Dobbs decision first leaked, our institution has received numerous requests for permanent contraception from individuals stating that their motivation to pursue permanent contraception was influenced by the Dobbs decision and concerns about their reproductive autonomy. Discussions with patients seeking permanent contraception since the Supreme Court's leaked decision have led us to ask ourselves, is legislative anxiety an indication for surgery? This article presents a case series consisting of a convenience sample of 17 young, nulliparous individuals who sought out permanent contraception in the six months following the leak of the Dobbs decision. Healthcare professionals often feel discomfort in offering permanent contraception to young and nulliparous individuals. Accordingly, we discuss pertinent legal issues, review relevant ethical considerations, and offer a framework for these discussions intended to empower the consulting healthcare professional to center the bodily autonomy of every patient regardless of age, parity, or indication for permanent contraception.

Trauma of abortion restrictions and forced pregnancy: urgent implications for acute care surgeons.

In the aftermath of the Supreme Court's Dobbs vs. Jackson Women's Health decision, acute care surgeons face an increased likelihood of seeing patients with complications from both self-managed abortions and forced pregnancy in underserved areas of reproductive and maternity care throughout the USA. Acute care surgeons have an ethical and legal duty to provide care to these patients, especially in obstetrics and gynecology deserts, which already exist in much of the country and are likely to be exacerbated by legislation banning abortion. Structural inequities lead to an over-representation of poor individuals and people of color among patients seeking abortion care, and it is imperative to make central the fact that people of color who can become pregnant will be disproportionately affected by this legislation in every respect. Acute care surgeons must take action to become aware of and trained to treat both the direct clinical complications and the extragestational consequences of reproductive injustice, while also using their collective voices to reaffirm the right to abortion as essential healthcare in the USA.

Gaps in patient-physician communication at the time of malignant bowel obstruction from recurrent gynecologic cancer: a qualitative study.

PURPOSE: We sought to investigate the patient and physician approaches to malignant bowel obstruction (MBO) due to recurrent gynecologic cancer by (1) comparing patient and physician expectations and priorities during a new MBO diagnosis, and (2) highlighting factors that facilitate patient-doctor communication. METHODS: Patients were interviewed about their experience during an admission for MBO, and physicians were interviewed about their general approach towards MBO. Interviews were analyzed for themes using QDAMiner qualitative analysis software. The analysis utilized the framework analysis and used both predetermined themes and those that emerged from the data. RESULTS: We interviewed 14 patients admitted with MBO from recurrent gynecologic cancer and 15 gynecologic oncologists. We found differences between patients and physicians regarding plans for next chemotherapy treatments, foremost priorities, communication styles, and need for end-of-life discussions. Both patients and physicians felt that patient-physician communication was improved in situations of trust, understanding patient preferences, corroboration of information, and increased time spent with patients during and before the MBO. CONCLUSION: Gaps in patient-physician communication could be targeted to improve the patient experience and physician counseling during a difficult diagnosis. Our findings emphasize a need for patient-physician discussions to focus on expectations for future cancer-directed treatments, support for patients at home with home health or hospice level support in line with their wishes, and acknowledgement of uncertainty while providing direct information about the MBO diagnosis.

Prevalence of and Factors Associated With Receiving a Pelvic Examination or Pap Testing Under the Age of 21 Years.

PURPOSE: Current guidelines recommend that individuals receive their first Pap test at age 21 years and only receive a pelvic examination before age 21 years for clinical indications. We sought to determine the prevalence and associated covariates of receiving a pelvic examination or Pap test before 21 years of age. METHODS: We analyzed the 2013-2015 National Survey of Family Growth. We conducted bivariate analyses comparing individuals who had and had not had a pelvic examination or Pap test and multivariable logistic regression to identify factors associated with having a pelvic examination or Pap test under 21 years. RESULTS: This study included 1,170 individuals. Of respondents, 30.8% received a pelvic examination and 25.1% received a Pap test before 21 years of age. Receiving a pelvic examination was associated with being sexually active (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 6.6, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 3.8-11.7), having ever taken contraceptive pills (aOR: 2.6, 95% CI: 1.6-4.1) compared with no contraceptive method, and being screened for sexually transmitted infections in the past 12 months (aOR: 12.6, 95% CI: 7.3-21.8). Receiving a Pap test was also associated being sexually active (aOR: 7.2, 95% CI: 3.7-14.0), having ever taken contraceptive pills (aOR: 3.0, 95% CI: 1.9-4.7) compared with no contraceptive method, and being screened for sexually transmitted infections in the past 12 months (aOR: 8.94, 95% CI: 5.12-15.61). CONCLUSIONS: Contrary to contemporary guidelines, a notable proportion of individuals under the age of 21 years continues to receive pelvic examinations and Pap testing.

Approach to Palliative Care Consultation for Patients With Malignant Bowel Obstruction in Gynecologic Oncology: A Qualitative Analysis of Physician Perspectives.

PURPOSE: Malignant bowel obstruction (MBO) from gynecologic cancer is associated with increased symptoms and short survival. A gynecologic oncologist's approach to palliative care consultation in the setting of MBO has not been well studied-it could be an opportune time for collaboration with palliative care. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This qualitative analysis of interviews with gynecologic oncologists focuses on their perspectives on palliative care consultation at the time of MBO. Interviews were analyzed using a framework analysis, and key themes and quotations were extracted. RESULTS: We interviewed 15 gynecologic oncologists from 8 institutions in Chicago. They described a variety of expectations from palliative care consultation. Most frequently, they consulted palliative care for specific questions but managed the remainder of the care. Most participants frequently consulted palliative care, but they also worried about fragmentation of care, the timing of when to introduce a new team during MBO, and the selection of appropriate patients for a limited resource. Many participants preferred earlier palliative care consultation, and many described an emotional toll of caring for patients with MBO. Palliative care consultation was most readily discussed for nonsurgical patients. CONCLUSION: Participants' expectations of palliative care consultations during MBO varied and were not always met. We recommend strengthening communication and protocols for palliative care involvement that meet the needs of specific patient populations and physician teams for surgical and nonsurgical patients. More research is needed to better understand how to integrate palliative care into oncologic and surgical care with gynecologic oncologists.

Shared Decision-Making Framework for Pelvic Examinations in Asymptomatic, Nonpregnant Patients.

Controversy exists regarding whether to perform pelvic examinations for asymptomatic, nonpregnant patients. However, several professional organizations support the notion that health care providers should no longer recommend that asymptomatic patients receive a yearly pelvic examination. At minimum, health care providers must respect patients' autonomy in decision making around this examination and initiate a joint discussion about whether to proceed with a pelvic examination. Shared decision making is a model used in other aspects of medicine that can aid such discussions. This model recognizes two experts in these clinical encounters-the health care provider is the expert regarding medical information and the patient is the expert regarding their values, preferences, and lived experiences. When shared decision making is used, not only is each expert valued for their knowledge, but the power differential shifts to a shared power model. This commentary aims to educate about shared decision making, explain why shared decision making is appropriate to use when discussing whether to perform a pelvic examination, and provide a framework for using shared decision making in discussing whether to proceed with a pelvic examination with asymptomatic, nonpregnant patients.

Reproductive health counseling and practices: a cross-sectional survey of bariatric surgeons.

BACKGROUND: Nearly 50% of bariatric surgery patients are women of reproductive age. Both obstetric and gynecology and surgery professional guidelines recommend a delay of fertility 1-2 years postbariatric surgery. METHODS: We sought to assess bariatric surgeons' perioperative reproductive counseling and contraceptive provision for women of reproductive age. We conducted a cross-sectional, national 32-question mail survey of bariatric surgeons. Survey topics included demographic factors, contraceptive counseling and provision, and method preference. Descriptive statistics were reported and Χ2 tests compared results among respondent demographic characteristics. RESULTS: A total of 574 of 1,935 physicians returned surveys (30%). After excluding 41 surveys due to missing data, we analyzed 533 (27%) surveys. Mean respondent age was 48.1 years. Most respondents were male (89%), white (78%), and completed residency training ≥10 years ago (72%). The majority of respondents' bariatric surgery patients were female (77%), 63% of which were of reproductive age. Most respondents recommended that their female patients delay pregnancy 12-24 months (87%). Whereas 70% of respondents did not require preoperative contraception, 52% always required postoperative contraceptive use. Although the majority of respondents (64%) referred patients to an obstetrician-gynecologist or primary care physician to obtain contraception, 35% did not know how their female patients obtained contraception. Female respondents were more likely than male respondents to always require a medicine consultation and preoperative contraception, P<.05. CONCLUSION: Despite consistently recommending a delay in pregnancy, bariatric surgeons inconsistently address perioperative contraceptive needs of women of reproductive age. These findings highlight the need for greater collaboration between bariatric surgeons and women's healthcare providers to address the reproductive health needs of women having bariatric surgery.

Adding injury to injury: ethical implications of the Medicaid sterilization consent regulations.

The need for contraceptive and family planning services is often unmet, especially among lower-income women. However, the history of the provision of these services is fraught with coercion and mistrust: in 1979, in response to forced sterilization practices among doctors working with poor and minority populations, the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare imposed regulations on the informed consent process for Medicaid recipients requesting sterilization. The government mandated, among other requirements, a 30-day waiting period between consent and surgery and proscribed laboring women from providing consent. Initially intended to prevent the exploitation of poor women, these rules have instead become a barrier to many women receiving strongly desired, effective, permanent contraception. More critically, the regulations are ethically flawed: by preventing women from accessing needed family planning services, the Medicaid consent rules violate the standards of beneficence and nonmaleficence; by treating publically insured women differently from privately insured women, they fail the justice standard; and by placing constraints on women's free choice of contraceptive methods, they run afoul of the autonomy standard. The current federal sterilization consent regulations warrant revising. The new rules must simultaneously reduce barriers to tubal ligation while safeguarding the rights of women who have historically suffered mistreatment at the hands of the medical profession. These goals could best be obtained through a combined approach of improved clinician ethics education and a new standardized sterilization consent policy, which applies to all women and which abolishes the 30-day waiting period and the prohibition on obtaining consent in labor.

Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and cancer in women 35 years and older.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the distribution of abnormal cytohistopathology among low-income women 35 years and older compared with women younger than 35 years. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a retrospective analysis of the 896 women who presented to the dysplasia clinic at an urban, public, tertiary care hospital with abnormal cervical cytology from September 23, 2008, to September 23, 2010. Statistical comparisons were made using t, χ(2), and Wilcoxon rank sum tests. RESULTS: Of the 896 patients, 460 (51%) were aged 35 years or older. Among the women 35 years and older, 56% had negative/benign histologic findings compared with 45% in women younger than 35 years. Conversely, women 35 years and older had lower rates of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 1 (14%) than women younger than 35 years (30%). However, the prevalence of cancer diagnosis, per colposcopy, increased significantly with age, affecting 6% of women aged 50 years or older, 2% of women aged 35 to 49 years, and 1% of women younger than 35 years (p = .0008). CONCLUSIONS: Women older than 35 years with abnormal cytology demonstrated increased severity of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia on histology compared with younger women. Although women younger than 35 years were more likely to have transient human papillomavirus infections, a very high prevalence of severe cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and cancer was identified among women aged 35 years and older. Careful evaluation and follow-up must be performed for this group of women who may have previously been considered by some clinicians to be low risk on the basis of their age.

Detection of gynecologic cancers in indigent women in an urban inner-city hospital.

OBJECTIVE: Access to care is a major concern for impoverished urban communities in the United States, whereas early detection of gynecologic malignancies significantly influences ultimate survival. Our goal was to compare the stage at detection of common gynecologic cancers at an urban county hospital with national estimates, and to describe the demographic and socioeconomic characteristics of this population. METHODS: All new patients presenting to the John H. Stroger, Jr. Hospital of Cook County gynecologic oncology clinic from January 1, 2008, to December 31, 2009, were reviewed under an institutional review board-approved protocol. Patients receiving primary treatment at the institution during these dates were included for analysis. We used χ tests to compare the institution's stage distributions to national estimates. RESULTS: Two hundred nineteen patients met inclusion criteria over the 2-year study period. Racial and ethnic minorities represented 72.5% of the population. Of the 219 patients, 56.1% (123/219) were uninsured and 37.9% (83/219) were covered by Medicaid or Medicare. We identified 97 (43.9%) cervical, 95 (43%) uterine, and 29 (13.1%) ovarian cancers, including 2 synchronous primaries. Compared to the National Cancer Data Base, women with uterine cancer at our institution were significantly more likely to present with later-stage disease (P < 0.05), whereas cervical cancer and ovarian cancer stage distributions did not differ significantly. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to national trends, women with uterine cancer presenting to an urban tertiary care public hospital have significantly more advanced disease, whereas those with cervical cancer do not. Nationally funded cervical cancer screening is successful but does not address all barriers to accessing gynecologic cancer care. Promotion of public education of endometrial cancer symptoms may be a vital need to impoverished communities with limited access to care.

Contraceptive choices of overweight and obese women in a publically funded hospital: possible clinical implications.

BACKGROUND: Despite the growing obesity epidemic in the United States, family planning for overweight and obese women has been understudied. The aim of this study was to describe the contraception methods selected by normal weight, overweight and obese women. STUDY DESIGN: We retrospectively reviewed 7262 charts of women who underwent first trimester surgical termination of pregnancy at the John H. Stroger, Jr. Hospital of Cook County between January 1, 2008, and January 1, 2010. We analyzed the relationship between body mass index (BMI) and choice of contraceptive method, after adjusting for age, race, smoking and level of education. RESULTS: When compared to patients with BMI <25 kg/m², overweight (BMI 25-29.9 kg/m²) and obese patients (BMI ≥30 kg/m²) were more likely to select the intrauterine device (OR 1.3, 95% CI 1.28-1.32 for overweight; OR 1.6, 95% CI 1.59-1.61 for obese), contraceptive ring (OR 1.4, 95% CI 1.28-1.52 for overweight; OR 1.6, 95% CI 1.57-1.63 for obese) and tubal ligation (OR 1.5 95% CI 1.44-1.62 for overweight; OR 2.9, 95% CI 2.79-3.01 for obese). They were less likely to choose injectable contraception (OR 0.7, 95% CI 0.59-0.81 for overweight; OR 0.52, 95% CI 0.48-0.56 for obese). There was no relationship between BMI and choice of condoms, oral contraceptive pills and implantable methods. CONCLUSION: In our population, the contraceptive choices of overweight and obese women differed from those of normal weight women. These differences in contraceptive selection are important to recognize in light of the potential effect of BMI on the safety and efficacy of different contraceptive methods. Further research is needed to evaluate the contraceptive preferences, risks and benefits for overweight and obese women.