Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T16:04:08.350Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Northwestern University Twin Study XV: Rationales for a Standard of Care in Compromised Twin Pregnancies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2014

J.P. Minogue ,
R.K. Tamura  and
L.G. Keith
J.P. Minogue*
Affiliation:
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Prentice Women's Hospital and Maternity Center, Northwestern University Medical School, Chicago, Illinois, USA
R.K. Tamura
Affiliation:
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Prentice Women's Hospital and Maternity Center, Northwestern University Medical School, Chicago, Illinois, USA
L.G. Keith
Affiliation:
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Prentice Women's Hospital and Maternity Center, Northwestern University Medical School, Chicago, Illinois, USA
*
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Northwestern University Medical School, 333 East Superior Street, Suite 461, Chicago IL 60611, USA

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Current antenatal technologies have improved the obstetrician's ability to assess fetal well-being as well as to diagnose fetal compromise. These technologies have given rise to very difficult ethical issues in the management of compromised twin pregnancies: for example, a choice must be made between putting a healthy twin at risk due to preterm delivery for the sake of a compromised cotwin or of allowing the compromised twin to die in order to buy time for the healthy twin. Though each case is unique, good medical practice requires a standard of care by which consistent patient management can be proposed. In the pluralistic environment of Northwestern Memorial Hospital, our staff has favored a standard of care based on patient autonomy. This approach demands: 1) a practitioner who offers a thorough explanation of the diagnosis and possible treatment approaches; 2) time for the patient and her partner to assimilate this information and test treatment options against their personal value system; 3) a third, but disinterested, party to facilitate patient understanding and value clarification; 4) a practitioner either willing to support the patient's decisions or refer her to another practitioner who will.

Keywords

BioethicsCompromised fetusesTwin pregnancy
Type
Research Article
Information
Acta geneticae medicae et gemellologiae: twin research , Volume 39 , Issue 3 , July 1990 , pp. 379 - 382
Copyright
Copyright © The International Society for Twin Studies 1990

References

REFERENCES

1.Aristotle, (1962): Nicomachean Ethics (trans. Ostwald, M). Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, pp 3–33.Google Scholar
2.Beauchamp, T, Childress, J (1979): Principles of Biomedical Ethics. New York: Oxford University Press, pp 56–85.Google Scholar
3.Hippocrates (trans. Jones, WHS) (1923): The Loeb Classical Library, Vol 1. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, pp 164–165.Google Scholar
4.Kant, I (1959): Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals (trans Beck, LW). New York: Bobbs-Merrill, pp 3–9.Google Scholar
5.Mill, J (1871): Utilitarianism, 4th ed. London: Longsmans, Green, Reader, and Dyer, pp 8–31.Google Scholar
6.Minogue, J (1978): A Journey in Compassion. Unpublished thesis. Mundelein, IL: St. Mary's of the Lake University, pp 99–100.Google Scholar
7.Munson, R (1983): Intervention and Reflection: Basic Issues in Medical Ethics, 2d ed. Belmont, California: Wadsworth Publishing Company, pp 21–26.Google Scholar