Hippocratic ideal, Faustian bargain and Damocles' sword: erosion of patient autonomy in obstetrics.
Respect for patient autonomy remains a foundational principle guiding the ethical practice of medicine-a mission first articulated by Hippocrates. Damocles, another figure from ancient Greece, provides a useful parable for describing performance under distress: Damocles loses his desire for opulence and power when he notices a sword dangling precariously above his head. Contemporary obstetricians deciding whether to forestall or impose major abdominal surgery on parturients entrusted to their care struggle valiantly in the chasm dividing Hippocratic idealism from the economic realism driven by the medicolegal sword of Damocles. Given the inherent risk of unforeseeable and unsalvageable fetal catastrophe during labor and vaginal delivery, and the often unsubstantiated, yet automatic, allegation of negligence that follows a labor-associated adversity, obstetricians-and their liability insurance carriers-have recalibrated obstetric practice in alignment with the increasingly risk-averse preferences of most patients. Indeed, less intrapartum risk for patients and less corresponding medicolegal exposure for obstetricians help explain the rising cesarean delivery rate and, more importantly, the steady disappearance of higher-risk interventions such as vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC). Is this increasing reluctance to offer VBAC supervision ethically defensible? This paper argues that it is. Fiduciary professionalism mandates physician self-sacrifice, not self-destruction; a VBAC gone awry without negligence or substandard care may, nevertheless, render future affordable liability coverage unattainable. Yet, the unavailability of VBAC infringes on the autonomy of women who want to assume the intrapartum risks of a VBAC in lieu of a repeat cesarean delivery. The proposed solution is the regionalization of VBAC care provision in designated medical centers and/or the implementation of binding arbitration in an ethical trade-off to enhance patient autonomy regarding the preferred mode of delivery despite parallel constraint on legal options.
Rybak
E A
EA
Division of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility, Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Women's Health, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Montefiore Medical Center, Bronx, NY 10461, USA. erybak@montefiore.org
D002585:Cesarean Section / Q000191:economics* / Q000941:ethics; D017604:Cesarean Section, Repeat / Q000191:economics / Q000941:ethics; D003362:Cost-Benefit Analysis / Q000941:ethics; D003675:Defensive Medicine / Q000191:economics / Q000941:ethics; D004992:Ethics, Medical; D005260:Female; D006625:Hippocratic Oath; D006801:Humans; D007231:Infant, Newborn; D007351:Insurance, Liability / Q000191:economics / Q000941:ethics; D008318:Malpractice / Q000191:economics*; D009774:Obstetrics / Q000191:economics* / Q000941:ethics; D026684:Personal Autonomy; D010818:Practice Patterns, Physicians' / Q000191:economics* / Q000941:ethics; D011247:Pregnancy; D012307:Risk Factors; D012308:Risk Management / Q000191:economics / Q000941:ethics; D014481:United States; D016064:Vaginal Birth after Cesarean / Q000191:economics / Q000941:ethics