ArticleThe Journal of law, medicine & ethics : a journal of the American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics2025
Legal and Ethical Issues in Periviable Decision-Making in the Current Moment.
Article in The Journal of law, medicine & ethics : a journal of the American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Periviable births, occurring between 20 and 25 weeks of gestation, present significant challenges due to varying survival rates and potential morbidities for survivors. Medical decision-making in this context raises ethical and legal questions, including considerations of sanctity of life versus quality of life and challenges in the clinician-parent relationship. This article outlines the complex ethical and legal landscape surrounding parental medical decision-making for periviable infants in the United States, discussing the evolution of federal and state laws. Existing laws highlight a vitalist approach that prioritizes life preservation despite potential harm and overlook non-heteronormative and non-traditional family structures, complicating decision-making. The impact of post-Dobbs state abortion bans on parental and clinician autonomy have exacerbated these challenges. We advocate for legislative support for inclusive definitions of legal parenthood to facilitate evidence-based decision-making centered on patients and families. Also needed are legal frameworks that accommodate the intricacies of periviable birth decisions while respecting patient autonomy and medical expertise, especially amidst the evolving legislative environment.
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.