Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
Más filtros










Intervalo de año de publicación
1.
Cuad. bioét ; 30(98): 67-76, ene.-abr. 2019.
Artículo en Español | IBECS | ID: ibc-180696

RESUMEN

Este artículo presenta un caso poco habitual de ruptura uterina durante la 19ª semana de gestación en el lugar de la cicatriz de una cesárea realizada dos años antes. El feto estaba todavía vivo, pero murió pocos minutos después debido a su inmadurez. Se consiguió preservar el útero, aconsejando vivamente a la mujer el no volver a quedar embarazada, y sugiriendo realizar la ligadura de trompas. En estas páginas se examina la literatura sobre la ruptura uterina, en concreto, la que se produce tras una intervención cesárea, valorando la posibilidad de calcular el riesgo de ruptura a través del estudio ecográfico. A continuación se ofrece el análisis moral del caso desde la perspectiva de la moral católica, preguntándose concretamente por la licitud de la histerectomía en ciertas condiciones. Se recuerda la ilicitud de toda esterilización directa, o sea, de aquellas intervenciones que se proponen impedir la procreación. Al mismo tiempo se explica que algunas operaciones en este ámbito pueden no configurarse como esterilización directa, cuando se llegue a la certeza moral de que el útero, por las condiciones en las que se encuentra, no será capaz de desarrollar un embarazo hasta la viabilidad del feto. En estos casos la intervención no puede decirse antiprocreativa porque el sistema reproductivo de la mujer es incapaz de cumplir su función natural


The article presents a rare case of uterine rupture at the 19th week of gestation, in the presence of a scar after a caesarean section practiced two years earlier. The fetus was pulled out alive, but given the gestational age, died within a few minutes. The uterus was preserved, but the woman was advised to proceed with tubal ligation and, in any case, to absolutely avoid a new pregnancy. The literature on uterine rupture is examined focusing on the problem of uterine rupture resulting after a caesarean section, analyzing the possibility of monitoring the risk of rupture through ultrasound evaluation. Finally, the article conducts a moral analysis of the case in the light of personal bioethics, questioning in particular the acceptability of a hysterectomy under certain conditions. The illegitimacy of direct sterilization is reaffirmed, that is to say, an intervention whose purpose is the impediment of procreation, but it is emphasized that direct sterilization cannot occur when it comes to the moral certainty that that uterus, because of its conditions , cannot carry on a pregnancy until the viability of the fetus. In fact, an intervention that affects a uterus that is objectively incapable of carrying out its natural function cannot be qualified as anti-procreative


Asunto(s)
Humanos , Femenino , Embarazo , Adulto , Rotura Uterina/diagnóstico , Rotura Uterina/terapia , Complicaciones del Embarazo/epidemiología , Histerectomía/ética , Cesárea/ética , Cicatriz/epidemiología , Moral , Cicatriz/diagnóstico por imagen
2.
Cuad Bioet ; 30(98): 67-76, 2019.
Artículo en Español | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30742455

RESUMEN

The article presents a rare case of uterine rupture at the 19th week of gestation, in the presence of a scar after a caesarean section practiced two years earlier. The fetus was pulled out alive, but given the gestational age, died within a few minutes. The uterus was preserved, but the woman was advised to proceed with tubal ligation and, in any case, to absolutely avoid a new pregnancy. The literature on uterine rupture is examined focusing on the problem of uterine rupture resulting after a caesarean section, analyzing the possibility of monitoring the risk of rupture through ultrasound evaluation. Finally, the article conducts a moral analysis of the case in the light of catholic moral, questioning in particular the acceptability of a hysterectomy under certain conditions. The illegitimacy of direct sterilization is reaffirmed, that is to say, an intervention whose purpose is the impediment of procreation, but it is emphasized that direct sterilization cannot occur when it comes to the moral certainty that that uterus, because of its conditions , cannot carry on a pregnancy until the viability of the fetus. In fact, an intervention that affects a uterus that is objectively incapable of carrying out its natural function cannot be qualified as anti-procreative.


Asunto(s)
Complicaciones del Embarazo/cirugía , Rotura Uterina/cirugía , Adulto , Discusiones Bioéticas , Femenino , Humanos , Histerectomía , Embarazo , Esterilización Tubaria
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA
...