Maternal–Fetal Surgery: Does Recognising Fetal Patienthood Pose a Threat to Pregnant Women’s Autonomy?

Begović, Dunja

Abstract

Maternal–fetal surgery (MFS) encompasses a range of innovative procedures aiming to treat fetal illnesses and anomalies during pregnancy. Their development and gradual introduction into healthcare raise important ethical issues concerning respect for pregnant women’s bodily integrity and autonomy. This paper asks what kind of ethical framework should be employed to best regulate the practice of MFS without eroding the hard-won rights of pregnant women. I examine some existing models conceptualising the relationship between a pregnant woman and the fetus to determine what kind of framework is the most adequate for MFS, and conclude that an ecosystem or maternal–fetal dyad model is best suited for upholding women’s autonomy. However, I suggest that an appropriate framework needs to incorporate some notion of fetal patienthood, albeit a very limited one, in order to be consistent with the views of healthcare providers and their pregnant patients. I argue that such an ethical framework is both theoretically sound and fundamentally respectful of women’s autonomy, and is thus best suited to protect women from coercion or undue paternalism when deciding whether to undergo MFS.

Citation

Begović, D. (2021). Maternal–Fetal Surgery: Does Recognising Fetal Patienthood Pose a Threat to Pregnant Women’s Autonomy?. Health Care Analysis, 29(4), 301-318. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10728-021-00440-2

• Journal Article Type: Article
• Acceptance Date: Oct 12, 2021
• Online Publication Date: Oct 21, 2021
• Publication Date: 2021-12
• Deposit Date: Mar 10, 2025
• Journal: Health Care Analysis
• Print ISSN: 1065-3058
• Electronic ISSN: 1573-3394
• Publisher: Springer Verlag
• Peer Reviewed: Peer Reviewed
• Volume: 29
• Issue: 4
• Pages: 301-318
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10728-021-00440-2
• Keywords: Fetal surgery; Maternal–fetal surgery; Maternal–fetal conflict; Autonomy; Pregnancy; Fetal patient
• Public URL: https://keele-repository.worktribe.com/output/1105698
• Publisher URL: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10728-021-00440-2#article-info
• Additional Information: Accepted: 12 October 2021; First Online: 21 October 2021; : ; : The authors declared that there is no conflict of interest.