Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-4hhp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-01T12:26:08.097Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 12 - Intrapartum Management

from Section 3 - Professionally Responsible Clinical Practice

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 November 2019

Laurence B. McCullough ,
John H. Coverdale  and
Frank A. Chervenak
Laurence B. McCullough
Affiliation:
Donald and Barbara Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell
John H. Coverdale
Affiliation:
Baylor College of Medicine, Texas
Frank A. Chervenak
Affiliation:
Donald and Barbara Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell
Get access

Summary

This chapter provides an ethical framework to guide decision making about intrapartum management.

Most women deliver their babies vaginally. Vaginal delivery is clearly safer for the pregnant patient because no invasive clinical management is involved, even when fetal monitoring takes place. This clinical reality makes assisting vaginal delivery the default in clinical judgment, placing the burden of proof on justifying cesarean delivery. As a consequence, in traditional obstetric thinking, cesarean delivery is either indicated – the burden of proof is met – or nonindicated – the burden of proof is not met. When cesarean delivery is indicated, it should be recommended. When cesarean delivery is not indicated, it should not be offered, much less recommended.

Type
Chapter
Information
Professional Ethics in Obstetrics and Gynecology , pp. 147 - 162
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Kalish, RB, McCullough, LB, Chervenak, FA. Decision-making about caesarean delivery. Lancet 2006; 367: 883–845.Google Scholar
Nguyen, MT, McCullough, LB, Chervenak, FA. The importance of clinically and ethically fine-tuning decision-making about cesarean delivery. J Perinat Med 2017; 45: 551–557.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McCullough, LB. The professional medical ethics model of decisionmaking under conditions of uncertainty. Med Care Rev Res 2013; 70(1 Suppl): 141S–58S.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kon, AA. The shared decision-making continuum. JAMA 2010; 304: 903–904.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chervenak, FA, McCullough, LB. The unlimited-rights model of obstetric ethics threatens professionalism. BJOG 2017; 124: 1144–1147.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Whitney, SN, McGuire, AL, McCullough, LB. A typology of shared decision making, informed consent, and simple consent. Ann Intern Med 2003; 140: 54–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chervenak, FA, McCullough, LB. Clinical guides to preventing ethical conflicts between pregnant women and their physicians. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1990; 162: 303–307.Google Scholar
Nicolaides, KH, Chervenak, FA, McCullough, LB, et al. Evidence-based obstetric ethics and informed decision-making about invasive diagnosis after first-trimester assessment for risk of trisomy 21. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2005; 193: 322–326.Google Scholar
Salmeen, K, Brincat, C. Time from consent to cesarean delivery during labor. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2013; 209: 212.e1–6.Google Scholar
Martin, JA, Hamilton, BE, Ventura, SJ, Osterman, MJK, Wilson, EC, Mathews, TJ. Births: final data for 2010. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National Vital Statistics Report. August 28, 2012; 61(1): 1–72. Available at www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr61/nvsr61_01.pdf (accessed March 1, 2019).Google Scholar
National Institutes of Health consensus development conference statement: vaginal birth after cesarean: new insights, March 8–10, 2010. Obstet Gynecol 2010; 115: 1279–1295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chervenak, FA, McCullough, LB. An ethical framework for the informed consent process for trial of labor after cesarean delivery. Clin Perinatol 2011; 38: 227–231.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chervenak, FA, McCullough, LB. Preventive ethics for cesarean delivery: the time has come. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2013; 209: 166–167.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chervenak, FA, Romero, R. Is there a role for fetal cephalocentesis in modern obstetrics? Am J Perinatol 1984; 1: 170–173.Google Scholar
Chasen, S, Chervenak, FA, McCullough, LB. The role of cephalocentesis in modern obstetrics. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2001; 185: 734–736.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chervenak, FA, Isaacson, G, Campbell, S. Anomalies of the cranium and its contents. In Textbook of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology. Boston: Little, Brown, 1993: 825–852.Google Scholar
Chervenak, FA, Berkowitz, RL, Tortora, M, et al. Management of fetal hydrocephalus. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1985; 151: 933–937.Google Scholar
Raimondi, AJ, Soare, P. Intellectual development in shunted hydrocephalic children. Am J Dis Child 1974; 127: 664.Google Scholar
McCullough, DC, Balzer-Martin, LA. Current prognosis in overt neonatal hydrocephalus. J Neurosurg 1982; 57: 378.Google Scholar
Sutton, LN, Bruce, DA, Schut, L. Hydranencephaly versus maximal hydrocephalus: an important clinical distinction. Neurosurgery 1980; 6: 35.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lorber, J. The results of early treatment on extreme hydrocephalus. Med Child Neurol (Suppl) 1968; 16: 21.Google Scholar
Chervenak, FA, McCullough, LB. An ethically justified, clinically comprehensive management strategy for third-trimester pregnancies complicated by fetal anomalies. Obstet Gynecol 1990; 75: 311–316.Google Scholar
Chervenak, FA, McCullough, LB. Justified limits on refusing intervention. Hastings Cent Rep 1991; 21: 12–18.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brett, AS, McCullough, LB. When patients request specific interventions: defining the limits of the physician’s obligation. N Engl J Med 1986; 315: 1347–1351.Google Scholar
Brett, AS, McCullough, LB. Addressing requests by patients for non-beneficial interventions. JAMA 2012; 307: 149–150.Google Scholar
McCullough, LB. Was bioethics founded on historical and conceptual mistakes about medical paternalism? Bioethics 2011; 25: 66–74.Google Scholar
Annas, GJ. Protecting the liberty of pregnant patients. N Engl J Med 1987; 316: 1213–1214.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Minkoff, H, Marshal, MF, Liashenko, J. The fetus and the “potential child,” and the ethical obligations of obstetricians. Obstet Gynecol 2014; 123: 1100–1103.Google Scholar
DeSisto, MJ, Harding, CM, McCormick, RV, et al. The Maine and Vermont three-decade studies of serious mental illness.I. Matched comparison of cross-sectional outcome. Brit J Psychiatry 1995; 167: 331–338.Google Scholar
Howard, LM, Kumar, C, Leese, M, et al. The general fertility rate in women with psychotic disorders. Am J Psychiatry 2002; 159: 991–997.Google Scholar
Miller, LJ, Finnerty, M. Sexuality, pregnancy, and childrearing among women with schizophrenia-spectrum disorders. Psychiatr Serv 1996; 47: 502–506.Google Scholar
Teplin, LA, McClelland, GM, Abram, KM, et al. Crime victimization in adults with severe mental illness: comparison with the National Crime Victimization Survey. Arch Gen Psychiatry 2005; 62: 911–921.Google Scholar
McCullough, LB, Coverdale, JH, Chervenak, FA. Ethical challenges of decision making with pregnant patients who have schizophrenia. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2002; 187: 696–702.Google Scholar
McCullough, LB, Coverdale, J, Bayer, T, Chervenak, FA. Ethically justified guidelines for family planning interventions to prevent pregnancy in female patients with chronic mental illness. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1992; 167: 19–25.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Miller, LJ. Psychotic denial of pregnancy: phenomenology and clinical management. Hosp Community Psychiatry 1990; 41: 1233–1137.Google Scholar
Webb, R, Abel, K, Pickles, A, Appleby, L. Mortality in offspring of parents with psychotic disorders: a critical review and meta-analysis. Am J Psychiatry 2005; 162: 1045–1056.Google Scholar
Jablensky, AV, Morgan, V, Zubrick, SR, Bower, C, Yellachich, L-A. Pregnancy, delivery, and neonatal complications in a population cohort of women with schizophrenia and major affective disorders. Am J Psychiatry 2005; 62: 79–91.Google Scholar
Schneid-Kofman, N, Sheiner, E, Levy, A. Psychiatric illness and adverse pregnancy outcome. Int J Gynecol Obstet 2008; 101: 52–56.Google Scholar
Spielvogel, A, Wile, J. Treatment and outcomes of psychotic patients during pregnancy and childbirth. Birth 1992; 19: 131–137.Google Scholar
Coverdale, JH, McCullough, LB, Chervenak, FA. Assisted and surrogate decision making for pregnant patients who have schizophrenia. Schizophr Bull 2004; 30: 659–664.Google Scholar
Babbitt, KE, Bailey, KJ, Coverdale, JH, Chervenak, FA, McCullough, LB. Professionally responsible management of patients with major mental disorders. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2014; 210: 27–31.Google Scholar
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.Use of psychiatric medications during pregnancy and lactation. ACOG Pract Bull 2008; 111: 1001–1020.Google Scholar
Ryding, EL, Wijma, B, Wijma, K. Posttraumatic stress reactions after emergency cesarean section. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1997; 76: 856–861.Google Scholar
Giacino, JT, Katz, DI, Schiff, ND, Whyte, J, et al. Practice guideline update recommendations summary: disorders of consciousness: Report of the Guideline Development, Dissemination, and Implementation Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology; the American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine; and the National Institute on Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research. Neurology 2018; 91: 450–460.Google Scholar
Russell, JA, Epstein, LG, MD, Greer, DM, Kirschen, M, et al., on behalf of the Brain Death Working Group. AAN Position Statement. Brain death, the determination of brain death, and member guidance for brain death accommodation requests. Neurology 2019; 92: 1–5.Google Scholar
Esmaeilzadeh, M, Dictus, C, Kayvanpour, E, et al. One life ends, another begins: management of a brain-dead pregnant mother – a systematic review. BMC Medicine 2010; 8: 74.Google Scholar
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. ACOG Committee Opinion Number 761. Cesarean delivery on maternal request. Obstet Gynecol 2019; 133: e.73–77.Google Scholar
Chervenak, FA, McCullough, LB. An ethically justified algorithm for offering, recommending, and performing cesarean delivery and its application in managed care practice. Obstet Gynecol 1996; 87: 302–305.Google Scholar
Kingwani, P. Risk Management – An Analytical Study. IOSR Journal of Business and Management. February 2014, 83–89. Available at http://iosrjournals.org/iosr-jbm/papers/Vol16-issue3/Version-3/K016338389.pdf (accessed July 31, 2019).Google Scholar
Sheen, JJ, Wright, JD, Goffman, D, et al. Maternal age and risk for adverse outcomes. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2018; 219: 390.e1–15.Google Scholar
Tita, ATN, Jablonski, KA, Bailit, JL, et al. Neonatal outcomes of elective early-term births after demonstrated fetal lung maturity. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2018; 219: 296.e1–8.Google Scholar
Johnson, JK, Miller, SH, Horowitz, SD. Systems-based practice: improving the safety and quality of patient care by recognizing and improving the systems in which we work. In Henriksen, K, Battles, JB, Keyes, MA, et al., eds. Advances in Patient Safety: New Directions and Alternative Approaches (Vol. 2: Culture and Redesign). Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); August 2008. Available at www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK43731/ (accessed January 13, 2019).Google Scholar
Sanhedrin, Mishna 4.9. Available at www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/14110064.Mishnah_Sanhedrin_4_9_Yerushalmi_Talmud_Tractate_Sanhedrin_37a_(accessed March 1, 2019).Google Scholar
Grünebaum, A, McCullough, LB, Sapra, KJ, et al. Early and total neonatal mortality in relation to birth setting in the United States, 2006–2009. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2014; 211: 390.e1–7.Google Scholar
Grünebaum, A, McCullough, LB, Sapra, KJ, et al. Apgar score of 0 at 5 minutes and neonatal seizures or serious neurologic dysfunction in relation to birth setting. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2013; 209: 323.e1–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grünebaum, A, McCullough, LB, Brent, RL, Arabin, B, Levene, MI, Chervenak, FA. Perinatal risks of planned home births in the United States. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2015; 212: 350.e1–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wax, JR, Lucas, FL, Lamont, M, Cartin, A, Blackstone, J. Maternal and newborn outcomes in planned home birth vs planned hospital births: a metaanalysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2010; 203: 243.e1–8.Google Scholar
Snowden, JM, Tilden, EL, Snyder, J, Quigley, B, Caughey, AB, Cheng, YW. Planned out-of-hospital birth and birth outcomes. N Engl J Med 2015; 373: 2642–2653.Google Scholar
American Academy of Pediatrics: Policy Statement Planned Home Birth. Pediatrics 2013; 131: 1016–1020.Google Scholar
Gigerenzer, G, Galesic, M. Why do single event probabilities confuse patients? statements of frequency are better for communicating risk. BMJ; 2012; 344: e245.Google Scholar
Publications Committee, Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine. Placenta accreta. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2010; 203: 430–439.Google Scholar
ACOG Practice bulletin no. 115: Vaginal birth after previous cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol 2010; 116: 450–463.Google Scholar
Rasmussen, SA, Jamieson, DJ, Uyeki, TM. Effects of influenza on pregnant women and infants. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2012; 207: S3–8.Google Scholar
Farr, A, Chervenak, FA, McCullough, LB, Baergen, RN, Grünebaum, A. Human placentophagy: a review. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2017; 218: 401.e1–11.Google Scholar
Ecker, J. Minkoff home birth: what are physicians’ ethical obligations when patient choices may carry increased risk? Obstet Gynecol 2011; 117: 1179–1182.Google Scholar
Minkoff, H, Ecker, J. A reconsideration of home birth in the United States. J Clin Ethics 2013; 24: 207–214.Google Scholar
Chervenak, FA, McCullough, LB. The unlimited-rights model of obstetric ethics threatens professionalism. BJOG 2017; 124: 1144–1147.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×