NEJM Examines Supreme Court Decision To Uphold Partial-Birth Abortion Ban
The "major change" in last month's decision from previous Supreme Court decisions is that the opinion "brings ... the new willingness of Congress and the court to disregard the health of pregnant women and the medical judgment of their physicians," Annas writes. He adds that the decision "ignores or marginalizes long-standing principles of constitutional law" and "substitut[es] the personal morality" of the five justices who issued the majority decision. Physicians who are "disturbed or dismayed" by the decision could seek an amendment to the law to allow an exception to protect a woman's health or become "conscientious objectors," who would perform the procedure if necessary to protect a woman's life, according to Annas. He adds that the latter is a "viable option" only if physicians have support of medical groups, such as the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the legal profession (Annas, NJEM, 5/24). Perspective Pieces
NEJM on Thursday also published two perspective pieces responding to the Supreme Court's decision. Summaries appear below.
R. Alta Charo: The court in its decision "alter[ed]" the "balance" that access to abortion cannot impose an "undue burden" on women, Charo -- a professor of law and bioethics at the University of Wisconsin Madison and a member of the board of directors at the Guttmacher Institute -- writes in a perspective piece. The decision also "holds that requiring women" to undergo alternative abortion procedures when the banned procedure is the safest option is "neither an undue burden ... nor a dereliction of the state's duty to guard women's health and personal autonomy," Charo adds. According to Charo, the "greatest uncertainty" in the decision is the "continued viability" of a woman's right to abortion "in all but imminently life-threatening situations" (Charo, NEJM, 5/24).
Michael Greene: U.S. physicians' "lack of confidence" that the judicial system would "treat them fairly" if they provided care that violated the law -- "even if they had acted in good faith and in the patient's best interest" -- has "cast a pall over those who practice reproductive medicine," Greene -- an associate editor of NEJM, an ob-gyn and reproductive biology professor at Harvard Medical School and director of obstetrics at Massachusetts General Hospital -- writes in a perspective piece. According to Greene, the "last thing" a physician "needs is to have to worry" that performing a second-trimester surgical abortion "could potentially evolve into a criminal act." Greene adds, "Lacking confidence in the judicial system, physicians may choose to avoid performing" such abortions, "thus restricting access to them, perhaps even if the mother's life is in jeopardy" (Greene, NEJM, 5/24).
"Reprinted with permission from http://www.kaisernetwork.org. You can view the entire Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery at http://www.kaisernetwork.org/dailyreports/healthpolicy. The Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report is published for kaisernetwork.org, a free service of The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation . © 2005 Advisory Board Company and Kaiser Family Foundation. All rights reserved.
NEJM analizeazã decizia Curþii Supreme de a susþine naºtere parþialã-avort, Ban - NEJM Examines Supreme Court Decision To Uphold Partial-Birth Abortion Ban - articole medicale engleza - startsanatate