Abstract
On 24 June 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organisation held that:
‘The Constitution does not confer a right to abortion; Roe and Casey are overruled; and the authority to regulate abortion is returned to the people and their elected representatives.’
Since the ruling, thirteen states have enacted ‘trigger laws’ that restrict access to abortion except in specified circumstances, such as to save the life of the pregnant patient in a medical emergency. These laws not only inappropriately insert the State into the physician-patient relationship, but create an uncertain practice landscape for physicians by placing them at risk of criminal penalties. We illustrate the complexity of medical decision making for pregnant patients using examples from the case report literature, and discuss how leaving the definition of ‘medical emergency’ up to courts to decide will create a patchwork of restrictive and permissive standards that criminalises physicians and creates a ‘political standard of care’ that replaces evidence based medical care.
SHORT CONDENSATION
Medical emergency exemption clauses within laws restricting access to abortion undermine the physician-patient relationship and the complexity of medical decision making, creating a ‘political standard of care’ that replaces evidence based medical care
摘要
2022年6月24日, 美国最高法院在多布斯杰克逊妇女健康组织一案判决认为:“宪法没有赋予堕胎权;罗伊和凯西被驳回;管理堕胎的权力又回到了人民及其民选代表手中。”自裁决以来, 13个州颁布了“触发法”, 限制堕胎, 除非在特定情况下, 如在医疗紧急情况下挽救孕妇的生命。这些法律不仅不恰当地将国家插入医患关系, 而且通过将医生置于刑事处罚的风险中, 为他们创造了一个不确定的执业环境。我们用病例报告文献中的例子说明了孕妇医疗决策的复杂性, 并讨论了将“医疗紧急情况”的定义留给法院来决定将如何创建一个限制性和许可性标准的拼凑, 并创建一个取代循证医疗保健的“政治保健标准”。
短评
限制堕胎的法律中的医疗紧急豁免条款破坏了医患关系和医疗决策的复杂性, 创造了一种“政治保健标准”, 取代了循证医学保健。
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).