Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine Consult Series #71: Management of previable and periviable preterm prelabor rupture of membranes.

Previable and periviable preterm prelabor rupture of membranes are challenging obstetrical complications to manage given the substantial risk of maternal morbidity and mortality, with no guarantee of fetal benefit. The following are the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine recommendations for the management of previable and periviable preterm prelabor rupture of membranes before the period when a trial of neonatal resuscitation and intensive care would be considered appropriate by the healthcare team and desired by the patient: (1) we recommend that pregnant patients with previable and periviable preterm prelabor rupture of membranes receive individualized counseling about the maternal and fetal risks and benefits of both abortion care and expectant management to guide an informed decision; all patients with previable and periviable preterm prelabor rupture of membranes should be offered abortion care, and expectant management can also be offered in the absence of contraindications (GRADE 1C); (2) we recommend antibiotics for pregnant individuals who choose expectant management after preterm prelabor rupture of membranes at ≥24 0/7 weeks of gestation (GRADE 1B); (3) antibiotics can be considered after preterm prelabor rupture of membranes at 20 0/7 to 23 6/7 weeks of gestation (GRADE 2C); (4) administration of antenatal corticosteroids and magnesium sulfate is not recommended until the time when a trial of neonatal resuscitation and intensive care would be considered appropriate by the healthcare team and desired by the patient (GRADE 1B); (5) serial amnioinfusions and amniopatch are considered investigational and should be used only in a clinical trial setting; they are not recommended for routine care of previable and periviable preterm prelabor rupture of membranes (GRADE 1B); (6) cerclage management after previable or periviable preterm prelabor rupture of membranes is similar to cerclage management after preterm prelabor rupture of membranes at later gestational ages; it is reasonable to either remove the cerclage or leave it in situ after discussing the risks and benefits and incorporating shared decision-making (GRADE 2C); and (7) in subsequent pregnancies after a history of previable or periviable preterm prelabor rupture of membranes, we recommend following guidelines for management of pregnant persons with a previous spontaneous preterm birth (GRADE 1C).

Supported Decision-Making: Non-Domination Rather than Mental Prosthesis.

Recently, bioethicists and the UNCRPD have advocated for supported medical decision-making on behalf of patients with intellectual disabilities. But what does supported decision-making really entail? One compelling framework is Anita Silvers and Leslie Francis' mental prosthesis account, which envisions supported decision-making as a process in which trustees act as mere appendages for the patient's will; the trustee provides the cognitive tools the patient requires to realize her conception of her own good. We argue that supported decision-making would be better understood as a collaborative process, giving patients with intellectual disabilities the opportunity to make decisions in a respectful relationship with trusted others. We offer an alternative account of supported decision-making where the primary constraint is to protect the patient from domination by the trustee. This is advantageous in its preservation of the prospects for genuine collaboration, for the mental prosthesis approach ultimately reinforces a problematic ideal of isolated patient self-determination.

A Passing Problem: Evaluating Harm and Benefit in Autism Research.

Autism research frequently seeks to evaluate interventions or inform their development. Unfortunately, researchers often assume that autism intervention should reduce autistic traits, effectively setting as a goal of treatment that autistic people attempt to "pass" as nonautistic. A growing body of evidence highlights serious potential harms from passing demands. We discuss why it is important for institutional review boards (IRBs) to scrutinize autism research for clinical passing demands, and we document the existence of such demands in outcome measures commonly employed in autism research. We propose an ethical framework for IRBs and others to make use of in evaluating the ethical appropriateness of particular treatment goals in autism intervention or intervention-adjacent research, emphasizing that treatment goals should be in pursuit of a beneficial nonpassing purpose and be the least burdensome means of accomplishing such a purpose. We also highlight potential promising practices for IRBs, investigators, and other stakeholders seeking to address these issues in autism research.

Ethical Concerns with Applied Behavior Analysis for Autism Spectrum "Disorder".

This paper has both theoretical and practical ambitions. The theoretical ambitions are to explore what would constitute both effective and ethical treatment of Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD). However, the practical ambition is perhaps more important: we argue that a dominant form of Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA), which is widely taken to be far-and-away the best "treatment" for ASD, manifests systematic violations of the fundamental tenets of bioethics. Moreover, the supposed benefits of the treatment not only fail to mitigate these violations, but often exacerbate them. Warnings of the perils of ABA are not original to us-autism advocates have been ringing this bell for some years. However, their pleas have been largely unheeded, and ABA continues to be offered to and quite frequently pushed upon parents as the appropriate treatment for autistic children. Our contribution is to argue that, from a bioethical perspective, autism advocates are fully justified in their concerns-the rights of autistic children and their parents are being regularly infringed upon. Specifically, we will argue that employing ABA violates the principles of justice and nonmaleficence and, most critically, infringes on the autonomy of children and (when pushed aggressively) of parents as well.