Entrar/Registro  
HOME SPANISH
 
Perinatología y Reproducción Humana
   
MENU

Contents by Year, Volume and Issue

Table of Contents

General Information

Instructions for Authors

Message to Editor

Editorial Board






>Journals >Perinatología y Reproducción Humana >Year 2014, Issue 2


Flores MMA
Fetal interventions, pain and its bioethical dilemmas
Perinatol Reprod Hum 2014; 28 (2)

Language: Español
References: 21
Page: 114-118
PDF: 250.78 Kb.


Full text




ABSTRACT

Advances in medical science and technology have allowed fetal surgical interventions. Anatomical, physiological and behavioral studies suggest that the fetus can feel pain. There are different tendencies in the scientific international community: those who deny that the fetus can feel pain, those who consider that from week 29 or 30 the fetus can feel pain and those who conclude that the fetus has the capacity of feeling pain from 20 weeks post-conception. Currently, two types of fetal surgery are described in addition to the ex-utero intrapartum therapy procedure: 1) minimally invasive interventions and 2) open surgery. There are anesthesia and analgesia methods. Two questions are made: Is it ethical to be indifferent to fetal pain? Is it ethical not to treat and prevent pain in the fetus? These questions are addressed from the principlism and utilitarian perspectives. In conclusion: the fetus is a sensitive being from early stages and probably capable of feeling pain from 20 weeks. From Bentham and Mill utilitarianism, the fetus’ capacity to suffer pain is a vital attribute that gives it the right to equal consideration; is a living being that rejects pain, which is shown by behavioral and physiological changes in the presence of invasive procedures. According to Peter Singer, it is a sentient being, a moral being whose mental capacity is less than ours, so it is immoral to let the fetus suffer if we do not give analgesia and anesthesia when it is going into a surgical intervention.


Key words: Fetal pain, fetal analgesia, fetal surgery, utilitarian ethics, bioethics.


REFERENCIAS

  1. Mellor DJ, Diesch TJ, Gunn AJ, Bennet L. The importance of “awareness” for understanding fetal pain. Brain Res Brain Res Rev. 2005; 49: 455-71.

  2. Derbyshire SWG. Fetal pain: do we know enough to do the right thing? Reproductive Health Matters. 2008; 16: 117-26.

  3. Lee SJ, Ralston HJ, Drey EA, Partridge JC, Rosen MA. Fetal pain: a systematic multidisciplinary review of the evidence. JAMA. 2005; 294: 947-54.

  4. Anand KJS, Hickey PR. Pain and its effects in the human neonate and fetus. New England Journal of Medicine. 1987; 317: 1321-29.

  5. Anand KJ, Carr DB. The neuroanatomy, neurophysiology, and neurochemistry of pain, stress, and analgesia in newborns and children. Pediatr Clin North Am. 1989; 36: 795-822.

  6. Kostović I, Judas M. The development of the subplate and thalamocortical connections in the human fetal brain. Acta Paediatr. 2010; 99: 1119-27.

  7. Teixeira JM, Glover V, Fisk NM. Acute cerebral redistribution in response to invasive procedures in the human fetus. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1999; 181: 1018-25.

  8. Giannakoulopoulos X, Sepulveda W, Kourtis P, Glover V, Fisk NM. Fetal plasma cortisol and beta-endorphin response to intrauterine needling. Lancet. 1994; 344: 77-81.

  9. Fisk NM, Gitau R, Teixeira JM, Giannakoulopoulos X, Cameron AD, Glover VA. Effect of direct fetal opioid analgesia on fetal hormonal and hemodynamic stress response to intrauterine needling. Anesthesiology. 2001; 95: 828-35.

  10. Van de Velde M, De Buck F. Fetal and maternal analgesia/anesthesia for fetal procedures. Fetal Diagn Ther. 2012; 31: 201-9.

  11. Clouser KD, Gert B. A critique of principlism. J Med Philos. 1990; 15: 219-36.

  12. Beauchamp TL, Childress JF. Principles of biomedical ethics. Sixth edition. Oxford University Press; 2009. pp. 149.

  13. Chandis V, Willliams T. The patient, the doctor, the fetus, and the court-compelled cesarean: why courts should address the question through a bioethical lens. Med Law. 2006; 25: 729-46.

  14. McGarrv L, Chodoff P. The ethics of involuntary hospitalization. In: Bloch S, Chodoff P (eds.). Psychiatrc Ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1981. pp. 217.

  15. Gracia D. El principio de no maleficencia como fundamento de la ética médica. Madrid, España: Instituto de España, Real Academia Nacional de Medicina; 1990.

  16. Bentham J. 1781. An introduction to the principles of moral and legislation. 2nd ed. United States of America: Dover Philosophical Classics; 2007.

  17. Mill JF. 1863 Utilitarianism. Ontario, Canada: Batoche Books Kitchener; 2001.

  18. Singer P. Ética práctica. Madrid, España: Ediciones Akal; 2009.

  19. Singer P. Una vida ética, escritos. Madrid, España: Taurus; 2002.

  20. Singer P. Liberación animal. 2da ed. Madrid, España: Editorial Trota; 1990.

  21. Kushe H, Singer P. Individuals, humans and persons. In: Kushe H. (ed.) Unsanctifying human life. Blackwell; 2002. pp. 197.






>Journals >Perinatología y Reproducción Humana >Year 2014, Issue 2
 

· Journal Index 
· Links 






       
Copyright 2019