Electronic fetal monitoring: physician liability and informed consent.
Electronic fetal monitoring (EFM) has been criticized as ineffective, unsafe and costly. Despite existing controversy regarding the risks involved in using EFM, this monitoring procedure continues to be widely employed. In many jurisdictions, in fact, the use of EFM during labor may be considered the customary practice. This Article analyzes the medical and legal issues arising from a physician's use of or failure to use EFM. The Author argues that EFM subjects the mother and the fetus to risks which may be avoided if auscultation, a less intrusive monitoring technique, is employed. The "customary practice" standard of care, the ordinary negligence standard of care, and the "best judgment" and "duty to keep abreast" standards of care are compared and applied to the physician's decision to use EFM. The Author contends that physicians who employ auscultation may not be liable for failing to use EFM; however, physicians who use EFM despite the evidence of its risks may be liable for failing to "keep abreast" or to use their "best judgment" or for negligence. Finally, the Author contends that both physicians and their patients are best protected when the physician elicits the mother's informed consent to employ a particular monitoring technique during labor.
D003675:Defensive Medicine; D005260:Female; D005323:Fetal Monitoring / Q000009:adverse effects; D006801:Humans; D007258:Informed Consent; D008318:Malpractice; D011247:Pregnancy; D014481:United States