Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32913116›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical ethics2020

Maternal request caesareans and COVID-19: the virus does not diminish the importance of choice in childbirth.

Elizabeth Chloe Romanis, Anna Nelson

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical ethics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 15% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Elizabeth Chloe RomanisCentre for Ethics and Law in the Life Sciences, Durham Law School, Durham University, Durham, UK elizabeth.c.romanis@durham.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-8774-4015
Anna NelsonCentre for Social Ethics and Policy, Department of Law, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-3686-9333
Durham University · GBUniversity of Manchester · GB

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

It has recently been reported that some hospitals in the UK have placed a blanket restriction on the provision of maternal request caesarean sections (MRCS) as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. Pregnancy and birthing services are obviously facing challenges during the current emergency, but we argue that a blanket ban on MRCS is both inappropriate and disproportionate. In this paper, we highlight the importance of MRCS for pregnant people's health and autonomy in childbirth and argue that this remains crucial during the current emergency. We consider some potential arguments-based on pregnant people's health and resource allocation-that might be considered justification for the limitation of such services. We demonstrate, however, that these arguments are not as persuasive as they might appear because there is limited evidence to indicate either that provision of MRCS is always dangerous for pregnant people in the circumstances or would be a substantial burden on a hospital's ability to respond to the pandemic. Furthermore, we argue that even if MRCS was not a service that hospitals are equipped to offer to all pregnant persons who seek it, the current circumstances cannot justify a blanket ban on an important service and due attention must be paid to individual circumstances.

Indexed as

Human RightsBetacoronavirusCesarean SectionCoronavirus InfectionsCOVID-19Decision MakingElective Surgical ProceduresFemaleHealthHealth Care RationingHospitalsHumansMothersPandemicsPersonal AutonomyPneumonia, Viralautonomyfeminismreproductive medicineright to healthcare

Identifiers

PMID32913116
PMCPMC7656141
OpenAlexW3085766168

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.