Using genes to define motherhood - the California solution

Article Abstract:

In 1990, a California superior court ruled that a woman who donated an ovum fertilized by her husband to be borne by a surrogate mother was the child's true mother. The woman had had a hysterectomy and was unable to bear children. The decision was upheld by an appellate court. However, there is no doubt that a fetus in utero is influenced by the body of the woman who bears it. In addition, using genes to determine motherhood devalues pregnancy and childbirth, and depersonalizes the woman who carries the child. Women who have ovulation disorders now rely on donated ova, but under the California decision, this would make the donor the true mother. The best solution may be to continue to view the gestational mother - the woman who carries the child - as the true mother. In reality, these children have two mothers, and the best interests of the children should dictate which mother raises them.

Cases, Fertilization in vitro, Surrogate motherhood

---

Women and children first

Article Abstract:

Women and children should should come first in the effort to extend basic and decent health care coverage to all Americans. The era of managed care has ushered in the practice of quick deliveries that limits the days mothers and infants can spend in the hospital. Some plans restrict hospital benefits to 24 hours after a vaginal delivery and 48 hours after a cesarean section. This market-driven approach focuses on cost containment rather than on the health of the patient. Some states have enacted legislation that halts the 24-hour discharge policy and requires that insurance plans consider the safety of mothers and infants. It would be difficult, however, to pass laws on each specific category of care. Congress should require health care plans to offer at least decent minimal benefits to all subscribers.

Health aspects, Laws, regulations and rules, Medical care, Health insurance, Mother and infant, Mother-infant relations

---

The last resort -- the use of physical restraints in medical emergencies

Article Abstract:

The only time an emergency room physician should physically restrain patients is if patients are physically harming themselves or others. If the patient is unconscious, family members should be consulted if possible. This principle will be backed by federal regulations announced in July, 1999. The regulations follow an October, 1998 report by the Hartford Courant of 142 patients who had died while in restraints. In the spring of 1999, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court confirmed that patients have the right to refuse treatment. The case involved a patient with asthma who was restrained by an emergency room physician and treated against her will.

Patients, Medical emergencies, Restraint of patients, Physical restraint

Similar abstracts:

• Abstracts: Clinical trials: concerns of the patient and the public. Ethical considerations in randomized controlled clinical trials
• Abstracts: Physicians and medical education. The crisis in primary care and the role of medical schools: defining the issues
• Abstracts: It's time to douse fire on physician pay. What is real cause of U.S. complaints about health care? AMA campaign tells medicine's story
• Abstracts: Saving money in funding for buyout of your medical practice. The necessary involvement of stewardship in medicine
• Abstracts: Putting it all together. Magnesium: the cool news on an explosive metal. Clenbuterol: a dangerous shortcut?

This website is not affiliated with document authors or copyright owners. This page is provided for informational purposes only. Unintentional errors are possible.