Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26864662›Full record

ArticleMedicine, health care, and philosophy2016

On prenatal diagnosis and the decision to continue or terminate a pregnancy in France: a clinical ethics study of unknown moral territories.

Marie Gaille

Open access · greenAbstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Medicine, health care, and philosophy, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 19% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Marie GailleLaboratoire SPHERE, UMR 7219, CNRS-USPC, Université Paris Diderot, Bâtiment Condorcet, Case 7093, 5 rue Thomas Mann, 75205, Paris Cedex 13, France. mariegaille@yahoo.fr.
Sciences, Philosophie, Histoire · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This article presents a part of the results of an empirical study conducted at a Parisian hospital between 2011 and 2014. It aimed at understanding the women and couples' motivations to terminate or not a pregnancy once a prenatal diagnosis has revealed a genetically related disease in the embryo or fetus. The article first presents the social and legal context of the study, the methodology used and the pathologies that were encountered. Then, it examines the results of the interviews conducted with 5 women alone and 23 couples explaining their reasons for deciding to terminate or not the pregnancy. Finally, it explores the patients' views about the doctor's involvement in the decision-making process. The findings reveal the reasons they formulate when they ponder whether to terminate or not the pregnancy. It highlights the process of their deliberation, their hierarchisation of arguments and concerns. They also show how patients, though often consumed in sorrow, claim to be the legitimate decision-makers, especially women, in a social and legal context in which the rejection of eugenics is viewed as an undisputable principle.

Indexed as

Decision MakingAbortion, InducedAdultFemaleFranceGenetic Diseases, InbornHumansInterviews as TopicMalePregnancyPrenatal DiagnosisEugenicsMedical decisionMedical termination of pregnancyPrenatal diagnosisQuality of life

Identifiers

PMID26864662
OpenAlexW2271900533

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.