Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 20 de 3.959
Filtrar
2.
Ann Intern Med ; 176(3): 364-366, 2023 03.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36848653

RESUMO

The legal landscape around access to reproductive health care services was substantially altered after the Supreme Court decision in Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organization. In the aftermath of the decision, some state governments have begun to impose stringent restrictions and complete bans on the provision of abortion, whereas others have sought to protect and expand access. Some have gone as far as imposing criminal and civil penalties on physicians and other clinicians who provide evidence-based, clinically indicated reproductive health care services and information that is guided by biomedical ethics and provided in the best interest of the patient's health and well-being. In several states, lawmakers have attempted and successfully used new approaches to enforcing and achieving these prohibitions, including prohibitions on crossing state lines to obtain abortion care, prohibitions on the mailing of medication abortion, and the authorization of third-party civil lawsuits. In this policy brief, the American College of Physicians (ACP) updates and expands on its previous public policy positions on abortion from its 2018 policy paper, "Women's Health Policy in the United States," to reflect this new reality. The College also offers policymakers and payers recommendations to promote equitable access to reproductive health care services and safeguard maternal health. ACP reaffirms its opposition to undue and unnecessary governmental interference in the patient-physician relationship that criminalizes the provision of health care made in the physician's clinical judgment and based on clinical evidence and the standard of care.


Assuntos
Aborto Induzido , Médicos , Gravidez , Feminino , Estados Unidos , Humanos , Saúde Reprodutiva , Decisões da Suprema Corte , Política Pública
5.
N Engl J Med ; 388(6): e15, 2023 Feb 09.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36780683
7.
Soc Work ; 68(2): 150-158, 2023 03 16.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36728474

RESUMO

On June 24, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court voted to overturn Roe v. Wade, concluding that the Constitution of the United States does not confer a right to abortion. The court's decision in Dobbs immediately introduced challenging ethical issues for social workers who serve people who become pregnant. Key questions concern social workers' ability to protect clients' privacy and confidentiality, documentation protocols, and client abandonment. In addition, social workers must be concerned about the possibility that they are at risk of being named in licensing board and ethics complaints, lawsuits, and criminal court indictments because of their work with people who seek abortion-related information and services. The purpose of this article is to provide an overview of the Dobbs decision; discuss compelling ethical issues facing social workers who work with people who seek reproductive health information and services; present guidelines to assist social workers who face ethical dilemmas related to reproductive health services; and highlight the critical importance of ethics-informed social work advocacy related to reproductive health.


Assuntos
Aborto Induzido , Decisões da Suprema Corte , Feminino , Gravidez , Estados Unidos , Humanos , Assistentes Sociais , Aborto Legal , Serviço Social
8.
Am J Obstet Gynecol MFM ; 5(3): 100855, 2023 03.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36587807

RESUMO

When the Supreme Court of the United States decided Dobbs v. Jackson, it overruled Roe v. Wade and the decades of legal protections that physicians and patients have relied upon in making pregnancy decisions, including but not limited to abortion care. Abortion access has been limited before Dobbs, but the new legal landscape substantially limits patient access to abortion care by greatly curtailing legal provision of these services in many states, restricting physicians' ability to provide legal abortion care through confusing, inconsistent, and burdensome legal requirements, and by upending decades of reliable standards and leaving physicians and lawyers guessing about possible future court decision. Medical societies and healthcare organizations over the last 50 years since Roe have largely been silent in the face of attacks to abortion rights. Their silence left a void in which politicians and legislators without an understanding of abortion care promoted their own ideology and political interest at the expense of patient access to abortion care, patient autonomy, the physician-patient relationship, and physician autonomy. Physicians have an ethical duty to organize and advocate. Abortion legislation exemplifies the impact of unjust policies limiting our ability to provide patients with autonomy over their medical decision-making and interfering in the provision of evidence-based care, and in some cases preventing us from upholding our oath to do no harm. We must regain control of the examination room from political ideologies so that we can provide equitable, patient-centered, evidence-based, autonomous healthcare to our patients.


Assuntos
Médicos , Decisões da Suprema Corte , Feminino , Gravidez , Humanos , Estados Unidos , Aborto Legal
11.
Am J Nurs ; 123(1): 38-44, 2023 01 01.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36546386

RESUMO

ABSTRACT: The 2022 Supreme Court decision leaving the regulation of abortion to the states is sure to result in a complex regulatory environment for patients and nurses. In states where abortion is illegal, patients may self-manage abortions using medications they obtain through the mail or by other means. Nurses may care for these patients in multiple settings and may wonder about their own legal and ethical obligations. This article reviews patient privacy as it relates to self-managed abortion, ethical reporting requirements for nurses, and best practices for treating complications of self-managed abortion using a harm reduction framework, with a focus on protecting patients' rights. Recommendations for ethical patient care are also provided.


Assuntos
Aborto Induzido , Autogestão , Gravidez , Feminino , Humanos , Estados Unidos , Aborto Legal , Confidencialidade , Decisões da Suprema Corte
12.
JAMA ; 329(1): 17-18, 2023 01 03.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36484994

RESUMO

This Viewpoint details the risk to Medicaid beneficiaries if the Supreme Court supports a decision that will allow states to deny benefits to eligible recipients and deny beneficiaries' ability to hold states accountable in federal court.


Assuntos
Medicaid , Casas de Saúde , Decisões da Suprema Corte , Medicaid/legislação & jurisprudência , Casas de Saúde/legislação & jurisprudência , Governo Estadual , Estados Unidos/epidemiologia
13.
Hastings Cent Rep ; 52(6): 6-7, 2022 11.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36537270

RESUMO

In Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, the Supreme Court eliminated the long-standing federal constitutional right to abortion. Discussions of Dobbs tend to emphasize the loss of protection for reproductive choice. But Dobbs also eroded protection for a related yet distinctly important interest that served under Roe v. Wade as a check on government regulation of reproduction: the preservation of health. This erasure has opened the door to increasingly restrictive and punitive abortion bans, which are causing providers to deny or delay care that is necessary to prevent harm to both pregnant and nonpregnant patients. Federal regulatory attempts to prevent these harms will have limited impact, partially due to Congress's own history of exceptionalizing abortion in ways that devalue health. Only federal legislation can ensure adequate and enduring protection for the health of women, trans men, and other patients targeted for reproductive control because of their capacity for pregnancy.


Assuntos
Aborto Induzido , Aborto Legal , Gravidez , Feminino , Humanos , Estados Unidos , Reprodução , Decisões da Suprema Corte , Regulamentação Governamental
14.
JAMA ; 328(17): 1697-1698, 2022 11 01.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36318119

RESUMO

This Viewpoint discusses how states' restrictions on abortion will affect medical students' training in providing reproductive health care and also create moral distress by being forced to provide care that may harm patients.


Assuntos
Educação Médica , Princípios Morais , Decisões da Suprema Corte , Humanos , Educação Médica/ética , Educação Médica/legislação & jurisprudência , Educação Médica/métodos , Educação Médica/normas , Estudantes de Medicina , Estados Unidos
15.
JAMA ; 328(17): 1689-1690, 2022 11 01.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36318120

RESUMO

This Viewpoint discusses the US Supreme Court's decision in Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organization, describes how that decision threatens birth equity for some racial and social groups, and suggests a reproductive justice approach to address racial and social inequalities and ensure reproductive freedom and autonomy for all people.


Assuntos
Aborto Legal , Equidade em Saúde , Direitos Sexuais e Reprodutivos , Decisões da Suprema Corte , Feminino , Humanos , Gravidez , Aborto Legal/legislação & jurisprudência , Equidade em Saúde/legislação & jurisprudência , Equidade em Saúde/normas , Equidade em Saúde/tendências , Estados Unidos , Direitos Sexuais e Reprodutivos/legislação & jurisprudência , Direitos Sexuais e Reprodutivos/normas , Direitos Sexuais e Reprodutivos/tendências
16.
JAMA ; 328(17): 1695-1696, 2022 11 01.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36318123

RESUMO

This Viewpoint discusses the ways in which the Supreme Court's ruling in Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organization, which triggered abortion bans or restrictions in half of states, presents serious legal risks to clinicians and major ethical dilemmas.


Assuntos
Aborto Induzido , Acesso aos Serviços de Saúde , Médicos , Decisões da Suprema Corte , Feminino , Humanos , Gravidez , Aborto Induzido/ética , Aborto Induzido/legislação & jurisprudência , Aborto Legal/ética , Aborto Legal/legislação & jurisprudência , Ética Médica , Responsabilidade Legal , Princípios Morais , Médicos/ética , Médicos/legislação & jurisprudência , Estados Unidos , Acesso aos Serviços de Saúde/ética , Acesso aos Serviços de Saúde/legislação & jurisprudência
18.
JAMA ; 328(17): 1691-1692, 2022 11 01.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36318126

RESUMO

This Viewpoint discusses how limited or blocked access to legal abortion will affect the provision of emergency and critical care, including negative effects on patient health, legal intrusion into the patient-physician decision-making process, and concerns about legal jeopardy.


Assuntos
Aborto Induzido , Serviços Médicos de Emergência , Acesso aos Serviços de Saúde , Decisões da Suprema Corte , Feminino , Humanos , Gravidez , Aborto Induzido/legislação & jurisprudência , Aborto Legal/legislação & jurisprudência , Aborto Espontâneo , Serviços Médicos de Emergência/legislação & jurisprudência , Serviços Médicos de Emergência/normas , Acesso aos Serviços de Saúde/legislação & jurisprudência , Acesso aos Serviços de Saúde/normas , Estados Unidos
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA
...