Search

The actions of pregnant women can cause harm to their future children. However, even if the possible harm is serious and likely to occur, the law will generally not intervene. A pregnant woman is an autonomous person who is entitled to make her own decisions. A fetus in-utero has no legal right to protection. In striking contrast, the child, if born alive, may sue for injury in-utero; and the child is entitled to be protected by being removed from her parents if necessary for her protection. Indeed, there is a legal obligation for health professionals to report suspected harm, and for authorities to protect the child's wellbeing. We ask whether such contradictory responses are justified. Should the law intervene where a pregnant woman's actions risk serious and preventable fetal injury? The argument for legal intervention to protect a fetus is sometimes linked to the concept of 'fetal personhood' and the moral status of the fetus. In this article we will suggest that even if the fetus is not regarded as a separate person, and does not have the legal or moral status of a child, indeed, even if the fetus is regarded as having no legal or moral status, there is an ethical and legal case for intervening to prevent serious harm to a future child. We examine the arguments for and against intervention on behalf of the future child, drawing on the example of excessive maternal alcohol intake., (© 2016 The Authors. Bioethics Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Prenatally diagnosed abnormalities that are associated with death in the newborn period are often referred to as 'lethal malformations'. Yet, for many of the commonly described lethal malformations long-term survival is possible if supportive interventions are provided. In this paper we analyse and review fetal or congenital lethal abnormalities. The designation 'lethal' overlaps with the concept of 'medical futility'. The term is used for a heterogenous group of conditions, and hinders clear communication and counselling. We argue that the term should be avoided, and propose in its place a set of key questions that should be addressed by counselling., (© 2012 The Authors BJOG An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology © 2012 RCOG.)

Objective: To evaluate the accuracy of ultrasound measurement of nuchal thickness in first trimester fetuses for predicting fetal karyotype., Design: A prospective study of the nuchal thickness of fetuses measured during an ultrasound examination in all women undergoing first trimester chorionic villus sampling (CVS)., Setting: Two major public hospitals and two associated private practices between 7 September 1993 and 6 September 1994., Participants: Pregnant women with various indications for CVS (in 82% because of maternal age)., Results: 1306 women underwent CVS, including 11 with twin pregnancies: 1317 fetuses were tested. Karyotype results were obtained for 1312 fetuses: 41 (3.1%) had an abnormal karyotype, and 20 of these (49%) had a nuchal thickness measurement of 3 mm or more, compared with 44 (3.5%) of the 1271 fetuses with a normal karyotype. Of the 21 fetuses shown to have trisomy 21, 12 would have been detected if a nuchal thickness of 3 mm or more had been used as an indicator, giving a sensitivity of 57%. Nuchal thickness measurements of 1 or 2 mm excluded trisomy 21 with a negative predictive value of 99.3%. Fetuses with moderate nuchal thickening, normal karyotype and no other problems noted on the initial ultrasound scan had neonatal outcomes similar to those in the general obstetric population., Conclusion: Nuchal thickening in the first trimester (10 weeks on) of pregnancy in a high risk population is a powerful indicator of increased risk of aneuploidy.