ArticleReproductive health2025
The struggle over caesarean section on maternal request: an ethical principles approach to Swedish media portrayal.
Article in Reproductive health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Caesarean section on maternal request - a qualitative study of stakeholders´ views.Reproductive health · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCaesarean section on maternal request (CSMR) is a complex ethical issue. Sweden is an intriguing case for studying CSMR due to its restrictive policy that curtail women autonomous choice regarding the mode of birth, despite overall policy developments aiming to strengthen patients’ rights, promote person-centred care, and adopt a more individualized approach. This study aims to understand how the tension surrounding CSMR is manifested in Swedish media. An ethical principles approach is used to investigate what image of CSMR is created and conveyed to the public and what main arguments are used for and against CSMR.
methodsThis study covers news media and specialist press material in Sweden between March 2019 and March 2024. Searches were carried out in Retriever Research and resulted in 188 search hits. The content analysis had both an inductive and a deductive approach based on Beauchamp and Childress’s four ethical principles: respect for autonomy, non-maleficence, beneficence, and justice.
resultsThe analysis reveals a struggle in Swedish media over how to approach CSMR, touching on all ethical principles. Regarding autonomy, the debate focuses on whether CSMR is a medical decision about non-indicated surgery or a private choice. In terms of non-maleficence—which is the health professionals’ main concern—the media highlights conflicts over interpreting risks associated with caesarean section and vaginal birth. Beneficence involves a tension between portraying vaginal birth as healthy and normal versus caesarean section as a method to protect sexual and bodily function. As regards justice, CSMR is portrayed as a challenge to the fundamental needs-principle in the healthcare system.
conclusionsUltimately, the ethical principles approach to analyzing the media portrayal of CSMR in Sweden highlights the need for decision guidelines and practices that are more open to a woman’s own evaluation of different risks while also encouraging critical reflection on the underlying factors shaping treatment preferences for both women and healthcare professionals.
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.