ReviewESMO open2020
Discussing motherhood when the oncological prognosis is dire: ethical considerations for physicians.
Review in ESMO open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Influence of cancer in pregnancy on obstetric and neonatal outcomes: an observational retrospective cohort study.Journal of gynecologic oncology · 2024Observational
- Caring for Pregnant Patients with Cancer: A Framework for Ethical and Patient-Centred Care.Cancers · 2024Review
- Guidelines for Cancer Treatment during Pregnancy: Ethics-Related Content Evolution and Implications for Clinicians.Cancers · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Physicians are increasingly open to discussing and supporting pregnancy after cancer treatment. However, counselling patients who are seeking pregnancy despite advanced oncological disease and/or uncertain prognosis is still challenging. Two paradigmatic cases are presented and analysed to illustrate the ethical uneasiness faced by treating physicians when seriously ill patients seek fertility preservation and/or pregnancy. Review of ethical issues is built around the four principles of biomedical ethics. Respect for patients autonomy in relation to managing realistic expectations and avoiding giving patients false hopes opens the analysis. It is followed by considering fair allocation of resources and meaningful distinction between protecting patients from harm and contributing to their welfare. Responsibilities towards the unborn child are discussed in a light of maternal and fetal interdependency. Respecting personal autonomy requires abstaining from controlling inferences to the individual patient's choices, but it does not mean that patients should be left on their own to pick and choose their disease management approaches without advice and guidance from healthcare professionals. Physicians should reason evaluating the potential harms and checking if benefits will outweigh the risks and if costs will produce the best overall results. Responsibilities towards the unborn child can be managed by balancing the respect for maternal autonomy and beneficence for pregnant woman and her fetus. The oncologist cannot determine how patients should view their disease but with empathy and compassion can help them understand the logical rationale behind clinical advice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.