Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Ethical Issues in the Utilization of Cesarean Section

  • Chapter
Cesarean Section

Part of the book series: Clinical Perspectives in Obstetrics and Gynecology ((CPOG))

  • 134 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter explores the ethical issues surrounding the utilization of cesarean section for delivery. A few definitions are in order.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. The APGO Task force on Medical Ethics. Exploring issues in obstetrics and gynecologic medical ethics. Washington, DC: The Association of Professors of Gynecology and Obstetrics, 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Frankena W. Ethics, 2nd Ed. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1983.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Ryan K. Ethics in obstetrics and gynecology. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1985;151:840–843.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Hill E. Your morality or mine? an inquiry into the ethics of human reproduction. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1986;154:1173–1180.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Park R. Old bedfellows: ethics and obstetrics and gynecology. Obstet Gynecol 1989;73:1–3.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Moffic S, Coverdale J, Bayer T. The Hippocratic oath and clinical ethics. J Clin Ethics 1990;1:287–292.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Bulger R, ed. In search of the modern Hippocrates. Iowa City: University of Iowa Press, 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Beauchamp T, Childress J. Principles of biomedical ethics, 3rd Ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Elkins T. Introductory course in biomedical ethics in the obstetrics-gynecology residency. J Med Educ 1988;63:294–300.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Silver RK, Minogue J. When does a statistical fact become an ethical imperative? Am J Obstet Gynecol 1987;157:229–233.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Maclntyre A. After virtue. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1983.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Engelhardt T. The foundations of bioethics. New York: Oxford University Press, 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  13. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Committee on Ethics. Patient choice: maternal-fetal conflict. Washington, DC: American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Reich W. Caring for life in the first of it: moral paradigms for perinatal and neonatal ethics. Semin Perinatol 1987;11:279–287.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Pellegrino E, Thomasma D. For the patient’s good: the restoration of beneficence in health care. New York: Oxford University Press, 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Dunstan G, Shinebourne E, eds. Doctor’s decisions: ethical conflicts in medical practice. New York: Oxford University Press, 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Drane J. Becoming a good doctor: the place of virtue and character in medical ethics.Kansas City: Sheed and Ward, 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Brody H. My story is broken; can you help me fix it? Medical Ethics and the joint construction of narrative. Lit and Med Spring 1994; 13:79–92.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Guillemin J. Babies by cesarean: who chooses, who controls? Hastings Center Rep 1981;11:15–18.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Pellegrino E. The anatomy of clinical-ethical judgments in perinatology and neonatology: a substantive and procedural framework. Semin Perinatol 1987;11:202–209.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Bosk C. Social, medical, and ethical dilemmas in fetal medicine. In: Milunsky A, Annas GJ, eds. Genetics and the law, Vol. III. New York: Plenum, 1985.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Chervenak FA, McCullough LB. What is obstetric ethics? Clin Obstet Gynecol 1992; 35:709–719.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Nelson LJ, Milliken N. Compelled medical treatment of pregnant women: life, liberty, and law in conflict. JAMA 1988;259:1056–1066.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Price MR, Broomberg J. The impact of the fee-for-service reimbursement system on the utilization of health services. Part III: a comparison of caesarean section rates in white nulliparous women in the private and public sectors. S Afr Med J 1990;78:136–138.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Goyert GL, Bottoms SF, Treadwell MC, Nehra PC. The physician factor in cesarean birth rates. N Engl J Med 1989;320:706–709.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Stafford RS. The impact of nonclinical factors on repeat cesarean section. JAMA 1991; 265:9–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Kirk EP, Doyle KA, Leigh J, Garrard ML. Vaginal birth after cesarean or repeat cesarean section: medical risks or social realities? Am J Obstet Gynecol 1990;160:1398–1403.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Evans MI, Richardson DA, Sholl JS, Johnson BA. Cesarean section: assessment of the convenience factor. J Reprod Med 1984;29:670–676.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Johnson SR, Elkins TE, Strong C, Phelan JP. Obstetric decision-making: responses to patients who request cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol 1986;69:847–850.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Morreim EH. Ethical considerations in obstetric management. In: Evans MI, et al., eds. Fetal diagnosis and therapy: science, ethics, and the law. Philadelphia: Lippincott, 1989:233–242.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Brown D, Elkins TE. Ethical issues in obstetric cases involving prematurity. Clin Perinatol 1992;19:469–481.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Annas GJ, Glantz LH, Mariner WK. The right of privacy protects the doctor-patient relationship. JAMA 1990;263:858–861.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Jonsen AR. Involuntary treatment in medicine. Annu Rev Med 1986;37:41–48.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Rhoden NK. Informed consent in obstetrics: some special problems. West Engl Law Rev 1987; 9: 67–88.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Obade CC. In re A.C. reversed: judicial recognition of the rights of pregnant women. J Clin Ethics 1990;1:251.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Fleischeman AR, Macklin R. Fetal therapy: ethical considerations, potential conflicts. In: Weil WB, Benjamin M, eds. Ethical issues at the outset of life. Boston: Blackwell, 1987:121–148.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Kaufmann CL, Williams PR. Fetal surgery: the social implications of medical and surgical treatment of the unborn child. Women Health 1985;10:25–37.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Shultz M. Informed consent: a symbol analyzed. Hastings Center Rep 1987;17:24–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Annas GJ. Foreclosing the use of force: A.C. reversed. Hastings Center Rep 1990;20:27–29.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Brody H. The healer’s power. New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Kolder VE, Gallagher J, Parsons MT. Courtordered obstetrical interventions. N Engl J Med 1987;316:1192–1196.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Annas GJ. Protecting the liberty of pregnant patients. N Engl J Med 1987;316:1213–1214.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Elkins TE, Brown D, Barclay M, Andersen HF. Maternal-fetal conflict: a study of physician concerns in court-ordered cesarean sections. J Clin Ethics 1990;1:316–319.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. In re A.C. No. 87-609, District of Columbia. Atlantic Reporter, 2nd series. November 10, 1987 (date of decision); 533: 611–617.

    Google Scholar 

  45. In re A.C. No. 87-609, District of Columbia. Court of Appeals, en banc. Atlantic Reporter, 2nd series. April 26, 1990 (date of decision); 573:1235–1264.

    Google Scholar 

  46. DS Davis. Reflections on A.C. BioLaw 1990;(special section);448–451.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Annas GJ. She’s going to die: the case of Angela C. Hastings Center Rep 1988;18:23–25.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Mishkin B. [Letter to the editor.] Hastings Center Rep 1988;18:40–41.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Annas GJ. [Reply]. Hastings Center Rep 1988;18:41–42.

    Google Scholar 

  50. White ML. Reflections on In re A.C.: a tragedy of decision making. Bio Law 1990;(special section):433–442.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Allen AE. In re A.C.—an affirmation of ACOG committee opinion number 55: maternal-fetal conflict. Women’s Health Issues 1990;1:37–40.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. Childress JF. Analogical reasoning: organ/tissue donation and caesarean sections. BioLaw 1990;(special section):443–447.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Curran WJ. Court-ordered cesarean sections receive judicial defeat. N Engl J Med 1990;23:489–492.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Pacheco DA. Court Ordered Cesarean Sections. [Letter to the editor.] N Engl J Med 1991;324:272–273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Law and Medicine/Board of Trustees Report. Legal interventions during pregnancy: courtordered medical treatments and legal penalties for potentially harmful behavior by pregnant women. JAMA 1990;264:2663–2670.

    Google Scholar 

  56. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Committee on Ethics. Informed Consent. Washington, DC: American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  57. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Committee on Ethics. Sterilization of women who are mentally handicaped. Washington, DC: American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  58. American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Bioethics. Fetal therapy: ethical considerations. Pediatrics 1988;81:898–899.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Elkins TE, Andersen HF, Barclay M, et al. Court-ordered cesarean section: an analysis of ethical concerns in compelling cases. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1989;161:150–154.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  60. Elkins TE. The case for a middle ground.Women’s Health Issues 1990;1:34–36.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  61. Rosner F, Bennett AJ, Cassell EJ, et al. Fetal therapy and surgery: fetal rights versus maternal obligations. N Y State J Med 1989;89:80–84.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  62. Fletcher JC. Drawing moral lines in fetal therapy. Clin Obstet Gynecol 1986;29:595–601.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  63. Chervenak FA, McCullough LB. Clinical guides to preventing ethical conflicts between pregnant women and their physicians. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1990;162:303–307.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  64. Kluge EW. When cesarean section operations imposed by a court are justified. J Med Ethics 1988;14:206–211.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  65. Chervenak FA, McCullough LB. Perinatal ethics: a practical method of analysis of obligations to mother and fetus. Obstet Gynecol 1985;66:442–446.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  66. Strong C. Ethical conflicts between mother and fetus in obstetrics. Clin Perinatol 1987; 14:313–328.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  67. Anderson G, Strong C. The premature breech: cesarean section or trial of labor? J Med Ethics 1988;14:18–24.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  68. Chervenak FA, McCullough LB. Ethicalan alysis of the intrapartum management of pregnancy complicated by fetal hydrocephalus with macrocephaly. Obstet Gynecol 1986;68:720–724.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  69. Veatch R. Medical authority and professional medical authority: the nature of authority in medicine for decisions by lay persons and professionals. In: Agich G, ed. Responsibility in health care. Dordrecht: Reidel, 1982:127–139.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. Thomas E. Elkins
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Douglas Brown
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Kaiser Permanente, Southern California Permanente Medical Group, 92505, Riverside, CA, USA

    Bruce L. Flamm M.D. (Research Chairman) (Research Chairman)

  2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of California-Irvine Medical Center, 92668, Orange, CA, USA

    Edward J. Quilligan M.D. (Professor Emeritus) (Professor Emeritus)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1995 Springer-Verlag New York, Inc.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Elkins, T.E., Brown, D. (1995). Ethical Issues in the Utilization of Cesarean Section. In: Flamm, B.L., Quilligan, E.J. (eds) Cesarean Section. Clinical Perspectives in Obstetrics and Gynecology. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-2482-2_14

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-2482-2_14

  • Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4612-7556-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4612-2482-2

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation