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-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T10:52:54.202Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 8 - Antepartum: Legal Commentary I

from Part I - ANTEPARTUM

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 May 2010

John Patrick O'Grady ,
Martin L. Gimovsky ,
Lucy A. Bayer-Zwirello  and
Kevin Giordano
John Patrick O'Grady
Affiliation:
Tufts University, Massachusetts
Get access

Summary

Scientific advancements have had a profound impact on preconception risk assessment, prenatal diagnostic capabilities, and early intervention. Increased use of sophisticated ultrasound scans and laboratory technology, including the application of recent developments in gene mapping and prenatal blood, tissue, amniotic fluid testing, has resulted in dramatic advancements in antepartum testing. Legal events indicate that the failure to timely utilize technology appropriately to establish the diagnosis of a fetal problem earlier when treatment or termination may have avoided the outcome, is a sufficient and legal recognizable injury for the parents. A physician considering a diagnosis of ectopic pregnancy must be careful to elicit both positive and negative historic data that might support an increased risk of ectopic pregnancy. Conducting advanced scanning procedures is potentially hazardous from a legal point of view when the personnel involved have limited expertise or limited exposure to high-risk conditions.

Keywords

antepartum testingectopic pregnancyfetal problemprenatal diagnostic capabilitiesultrasound scansgenetic testinglegal abortions
Type
Chapter
Information
Operative Obstetrics , pp. 176 - 192
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2008

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

Roe v. Wade, 410 U. S. 113 (1973).
Berman v. Allan, 404 A.2d 8 (1979).
Planned Parenthood of Southern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U. S. 833 (1992).
Howard v. Lecher, 366 N. E. 2d 64 (1977).
Reed v. Campagnolo 332 Md. 226, 241 (1993).
Schirmer v. Mt. Auburn Obstetrics and Gynecologic Assoc 155 Oho App. 3d 640 (2003).
Howard v. Lecher 366 N. E.2d 64 (1977).
Meadow, W, Sunstein, CR: Statistics, not experts. Duke Law Journal 2001: 51(2):629–646.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Practice Bulletin Number 27, May 2001: Prenatal diagnosis of fetal chromosomal abnormalities. Washington, DC: American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, 1998.
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Practice Bulletin No. 44, July 2003: Neural Tube Defects. Washington, DC: American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Committee on Genetics. Committee Opinion No. 296 July, 2004: First-trimester screening for fetal aneuploidy. Washington, DC: American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, 2004.
Koonin, LM, MacKay, AP, Berg, CJ: Pregnancy-related mortality surveillance – United States, 1987–1990.
MMWR CDC Surveillance Summaries 1997; 46 No. SS-4: 17–36.
Roberts v. Mecosta County Gen. Hosp., 610 N. W.2d 285 (2000).
Anderson, FW, Hogan, JG, Ansbacher, R:Sudden death: Ectopic pregnancy mortality. Obstet Gynecol. 2004 Jun;103(6):1218–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaplan, BC, Dart, RG, Moskos, M, Kuligowska, E, Chun, B, Adel, Hamid M, Northern, K, Schmidt, J, Kharwadkar, A: Ectopic pregnancy: Prospective study with improved diagnostic accuracy. Ann Emerg Med 1996 Jul;28(1):10–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coffman v. Roberson, 571 S. E. 2d 255 (North Carolina Court of Appeals, 2002).
Cartwright, PS:Diagnosis of ectopic pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am 1991 Mar;18(1): 19–37.Google Scholar
Silva, C, Sammel, MD, Zhou, L, Gracia, C, Hummel, AC, Barnhart, K: Human chorionic gonadotropin profile for women with ectopic pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol 2006 Mar;107(3):605–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnhart, KT, Sammel, MD, Gracia, CR, Chittams, J, Hummel, AC, Shaunik, A: Risk factors for ectopic pregnancy in women with symptomatic first-trimester pregnancies. Fertil SteriL 2006 Jul;86(1):36–43. Epub 2006 May 30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnhart, KT, Sammel, MD, Rinaudo, PF, Zhou, L, Hummel, AC, Guo, W: Symptomatic patients with an early viable intrauterine pregnancy: HCG curves redefined. Obstet Gynecol 2004 Jul;104(1):50–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Practice Bulletin No. 3, December, 1998: Medical management of tubal pregnancy. Washington, DC: American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, 1998.
Sanders, RC: Changing patterns of ultrasound-related litigation: A historical survey. J Ultrasound Med 2003 Oct;22(10):1009–15. No abstract available.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Practice Bulletin No. 58, December, 2004: Ultrasonography in pregnancy. Washington, DC: American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, 1998.
Das v. Thani 795 A.2d 876 (2002).
Krishnan v. Sepulveda, 916 S. W.2d 478, 483 (Tex. 1995).
McArthur v. St. Mary's Hosp., 717 N. E.2d 501 (1999).
Sheppard-Mobley v. King 778 N. Y. S. 2d (2004).
Martinez v. Long Island Jewish Hillside Medical Center 519 N. Y. S. 53 (1987).
Perez v. Park Madison Professional Laboratories, Inc, 212 A. D. 2d 271, 630 N. Y. S. 2d 37 (1st Dep't 1995).
Iams, JD, Goldenberg, RL, Mercer, BM, Moawad, A, Thom, E, Meis, PJ, McNellis, D, Caritis, SN, Miodovnik, M, Menard, MK, Thurnau, GR, Bottoms, SE, Roberts, JM: The Preterm Prediction Study: Recurrence risk of spontaneous preterm birth. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units Network. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1998 May;178(5):1035–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Practice Bulletin No. 48, November, 2003: Clinical Management Guidelines on Cervical Insufficiency. Washington, DC: American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

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
×