medigraphic.com

2023, Number 2

<< Back Next >>

Revista Colombiana de Bioética 2023; 18 (2)

Medical and social dehumanization in the face of embryofetal loss in pregnant mothers

García SE, Vila CM

Language: Spanish
References: 38
Page: 1-12
PDF size: 167.91 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Purpose/Context. Evidence the existence of medical and social invisibility produced around embryo-fetal losses in pregnant mothers.
Method/Approach. Narrative and bioethical bibliographic review of publications that specifically analyze how pregnant mothers are affected by the way health workers communicate when they must notify the loss of their child due to complications in embryo- fetal development. We review whether the Principles of Bioethics are applied in this communication.
Results/Findings. After the analysis carried out, we found that, frequently, pregnant mothers who suffer these natural abortions often experience an absence of empathy and humanity in health professionals who do not adequately cover – ethically – the magnitude of this loss of the child. that is being developed. We add that this situation is aggravated by the feeling of failure and loneliness, together with the sadness and grief they go through.
Discussion/Conclusions/Contributions. We highlight the ontological and human value that mothers give to the death of the one they consider their child, regardless of the stage of development in which they are. Unforeseen death in the first weeks of pregnancy should not be reduced to a merely physiological accident with no importance at a communicative level. We conclude that it is necessary to advise health professionals through medical and ethical protocols that allow them to address the care of those patients who go through this situation of embryo-fetal loss. We consider from bioethics that, in the face of these critical circumstances, the Principle of Beneficence should be prioritized, given that poor communication negatively affects the physical and mental well-being of these patients.


REFERENCES

  1. Beauchamp, Tom y James Childress. 2019. “Principles of Biomedical Ethics: MarkingIts Fortieth Anniversary.” The American Journal of Bioethics 19, no. 11: 9-12.https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2019.1665402

  2. Bellhouse, Clare, Meredith J. Temple-Smith y Jade E. Bilardi. 2018. “It’s just oneof those things people don’t seem to talk about... women’s experiences of socialsupport following miscarriage: a qualitative study.” BMC Women’s Health 18:176. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12905-018-0672-3

  3. Benoit Bayle. 2002. L’embryon sur le divan. Psychopathologie de la conception humaine.París: Masson.

  4. Boltanski, Luc. 2016. La condición fetal: una sociología del engendramiento y del aborto.Madrid: Akal.

  5. Cabero Roura, Lluis. 2009. “Declaration of the Bioethics Commission of theSpanish Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology on legal interruption of pregnancy.”Documento SEGO 52, no. 1: 67-68. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-5013(09)70147-5

  6. Carrera, José María. 2003. “El feto como paciente: nuevos desafíos.” Ginecología yObstetricia Clínica 4, no. 3: 126-127.

  7. CDC. 2022. “¿Qué es la muerte fetal?” CDC. https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/spanish/stillbirth/facts.html

  8. Chichester, Melanie, Lesley Tepner y Denise Côté-Arsenault. 2022. “Nursing Careof Childbearing Families After Previous Perinatal Loss.” Nursing for Women’sHealth 26, no. 5: 379-388. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nwh.2022.07.011

  9. Claramunt, M. Ángels, Mónica Álvarez, Rosa Jové y Emilio Santos. 2009. La cunavacía: El doloroso proceso de perder un embarazo. Madrid: La esfera de los libros.

  10. Clement, Elizabeth, Sarah Horvath, Arden McAllister, Nathanael Koelper, MarySammel y Courtney Schreiber. 2019. “The Language of First-Trimester NonviablePregnancy.” Obstetrics & Gynecology 133, no. 1: 149-154. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000002997

  11. Consejo General de Colegios Médicos de España. 1990. Código de Ética y DeontologíaMédica, artículos 25.1 y 25.2. Madrid: Consejo General de Colegios Médicosde España.

  12. Díaz Sánchez, Verónica, María Eloísa García Huete, Dolores Marín Morales y ElenaCampo. 2010. “La construcción social del duelo en el aborto espontáneo.” Metasde Enfermería 13, no. 6: 25-32.

  13. Dimitriadis, Evdokia, Ellen Menkhorst, Shigeru Saito, William Kutteh y Jan Brosens.2020. “Recurrent pregnancy loss.” Nature Reviews Disease Primers 6: 98.https://doi.org/10.1038/s41572-020-00228-z

  14. Dugas, Carla y Valori Slane. 2021. “Miscarriage.” StatPearls [Internet]. Última modificaciónjunio 27, 2022. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK532992/

  15. García de Madinabeitia, Ana Pía. 2011. “Duelo perinatal: Un secreto dentro de unmisterio.” Revista de la Asociación Española de Neuropsiquiatría 31, no. 109: 62.https://doi.org/10.4321/S0211-57352011000100005

  16. Giménez Amaya, José Manuel. 2009. “Neurobiología del vínculo de apego y embarazo.”Cuadernos de Bioética 20, no. 3: 333-338.Herranz, Gonzalo. 2013. El embrión ficticio. Historia de un mito biológico. Madrid:Palabra.

  17. Herranz, Gonzalo. 2021. “Bioética y desarrollo embrionario.” Persona y Bioética 25,no. 1: 2.

  18. Koopmans, Laura, Trish Wilson, Joanne Cacciatore y Vicky Flenady. 2013. “Apoyoa madres, padres y familias después de la muerte perinatal.” Cochrane 6. https://doi.org//10.1002/14651858.CD000452.pub3

  19. Kowalski, Karen. 1987. Perinatal loss and bereavement. En Women’s Health: Crisisand Illness in Childbearing, editado por Lois Sonstegard, Karen Kowalski yBetty Jennings, 25-42. Nueva York: Grune and Stratton.

  20. León Correa, Francisco. 2007. “El diálogo bioético en las técnicas de reproducciónasistida.” Acta Bioethica 13, no. 2: 161-167. https://doi.org/10.4067/S1726-569X2007000200002

  21. López Moratalla, Natalia. 2009. “Comunicación materno/filial en el embarazo.”Cuadernos de Bioética 20, no. 70: 303-316.

  22. Martínez Serrano, Paloma. 2011. “Morir antes de nacer. Experiencias de madres ypadres en situación de muerte intraútero y de los profesionales en la atención alproceso de parto.” Reduca (Enfermería, Fisioterapia y Podología) 3, no. 3: 207-233.

  23. Martos-López, Isabel, María del Mar Sánchez-Guisado y Chaxiraxi Guedes-Arbelo.2016. “Duelo por muerte perinatal, un duelo desautorizado.” Revista Españolade Comunicación en Salud 7, no. 2: 300-309. https://doi.org/10.20318/recs.2016.3454

  24. Mastandrea, Paula Belén, María Paula Paragis e Irene Cambra Badii. 2022. “Cine ytrayectorias del aborto adolescente en Argentina y España.” Revista Colombianade Bioética 17, no. 2: e3777. https://doi.org/10.18270/rcb.v17i2.3777

  25. Murray, Judith, Deborah Terry, John Vance, D. Battistutta y Y. Connolly. 2000. “Effectsof a program of intervention on parental distress following infant death.” DeathStudies 24, no. 4: 275-305. https://doi.org/10.1080/074811800200469

  26. Noia, Giuseppe. 2007. Il figlio terminale. Roma: Nova Millenium.

  27. Organización Mundial de la Salud. 2000. Definitions and indicators in Family PlanningMaternal & Child Health and Reproductive Health used in the WHO RegionalOffice for Europe. Copenhagen: WHO Regional Office for Europe. https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/108284

  28. Pardo Sáenz, José María. 2011. El no nacido como paciente. Pamplona, España: Eunsa.

  29. Pastor Montero, Sonia María, José Manuel Romero Sánchez, Olga Paloma Castro,Juan Carlos Paramio Cuevas, Ana Cristina Toledano Losa y José Alejo OrtegónGallego. 2013. “Buenas prácticas en atención a la pérdida perinatal.” ParaninfoDigital Monográficos de Investigación. Granada 7, no. 19: 1-7.

  30. Prager, Sarah, Elizabeth Micks y Vanessa Dalton. 2023. “Pregnancy loss (miscarriage):Terminology, risk factors, and etiology.” UpToDate. https://www.uptodate.com/contents/pregnancy-loss-miscarriage-terminology-risk-factors-and-etiology

  31. Rodríguez-Pinilla, Elvira y María Luisa Martínez-Frías. 2010. “Tratamiento farmacológicode la mujer embarazada: fármacos contraindicados durantela gestación.” Semergen 36, no. 10: 579-585. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.semerg.2010.09.003

  32. Romero, S., K. Geiersbach, C. Paxton, N. Rose, E. Schisterman, D. Branch y R. Silver.

  33. 2015. “Differentiation of genetic abnormalities in early pregnancy loss.” Ultrasoundin Obstetrics & Gynecology 45, no. 1: 89-94. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.14713

  34. Sánchez Luna, Manuel. 2014. “Current «limit of viability».” Anales de Pediatría 80,no. 6: 346-347. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anpedi.2014.01.019

  35. Sánchez Zinny, Gloria María. 2004. “El embrión como paciente.” En Ética, bioética ydesarrollo. El hombre como ser dependiente, coordinado por Aquilino CayuelaCayuela, Julián Vara Martín, Francisco Javier Romero y Vicente Villar Amigó,91-103. Granada, España: Comares.

  36. Sociedad Española de Farmacéuticos de Atención Primaria. 2019. “Medicamentosen el embarazo: ¿qué tenemos que tener en cuenta?” SEFAP. https://www.sefap.org/2019/10/17/medicamentos-en-el-embarazo-que-tenemos-que-tener-en-cuenta/

  37. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. s. f. “Early PregnancyLoss.” ACOG. https://www.acog.org/womens-health/faqs/early-pregnancy-loss

  38. Umamanita. 2009. “Guía de atención a la muerte perinatal y neonatal.” Umamanaita.https://www.umamanita.es/guia-de-atencion-a-la-muerte-perinatal-yneonatal/




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com