European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology
Volume 134, Issue 1 , Pages 9-14 , September 2007

Information for patients undergoing a prenatal diagnosis

  • Souhail Alouini

      Affiliations

    • Laboratoire d’éthique médicale et de médecine légale, Université René Descartes, Paris 5, 45 rue des Saints Pères, 75006 France
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author. Tel.: +33 688 39 57 59.
    • ,
  • Grégoire Moutel

      Affiliations

    • Laboratoire d’éthique médicale et de médecine légale, Université René Descartes, Paris 5, 45 rue des Saints Pères, 75006 France
    • ,
  • Goda Venslauskaite

      Affiliations

    • Vilnius University, Department of Philosophy, Lithuania
    • ,
  • Martine Gaillard

      Affiliations

    • Laboratoire d’éthique médicale et de médecine légale, Université René Descartes, Paris 5, 45 rue des Saints Pères, 75006 France
    • ,
  • Jean-Bernard Truc

      Affiliations

    • Hôpital Lariboisière, service de Gynècologie-Obstetrique, Assistance Publique des Hôpitaux de Paris, 2 rue Ambroise Paré, 75010, France
    • ,
  • Christian Hervé

      Affiliations

    • Laboratoire d’éthique médicale et de médecine légale, Université René Descartes, Paris 5, 45 rue des Saints Pères, 75006 France

Received 12 July 2005 ,Revised 20 July 2006 ,Accepted 21 July 2006.

References 

  1. Wilson v. Kuenzi, 17 May 1988. United States. Missouri. Supreme Court. Annu Rev Popul Law 1988;15:50.
  2. Gregory V. Pembrokeshire Health Authority [31 January 1989]. United Kingdom. Court of Appeal. Annu Rev Popul Law. 1989;16:36
  3. Judgement, December 15, 1989. France. Tribunal de Premiere Instance, Montpellier. Annu Rev Popul Law 1989;16:29–30.
  4. Moutel G, Francois I, Moutard ML, Herve C. The Perruce decree, an opportunity to question the acceptance of a handicap and the relationship between physicians, justice and society. Presse Med. 2002;31:632–635
  5. Rouge-Maillart C, Tuech JJ, Pessaux P, Riche P, Penneau M. Patient information: management in the beginning of the XXIth century. Presse Med. 2001;30:68–72
  6. Sargos P, Pellerin D, Glorion B. Patient education by the surgeon. Judicial aspects, ethical aspects, deontologic aspects. Chirurgie. 1998;123:85–95discussion 95–6
  7. Code de deonthologie médicale. Décret no. 95-1000 du 6 September 1995. http://www.medsyn.fr/Textes/codedeontologie.htm.
  8. Loi no. 2004-800 du 6 août 2004 relative à la Bioéthique. http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr.
  9. Dreifuss-Netter F. Université Paris 5. Interruption de grossesse. Etude mise à jour le: 11/01/2002. http://www.droit.univ-paris5.fr. Centre de Documentation Multimédia en Droit Médical. http://www.ethique.inserm.fr.
  10. Judgement, November 8, 1988. Germany, Federal Republic of Bundesgerichtshof. Annu Rev Popul Law 1988;15:33–4.
  11. Gregory v. Pembrokeshire Health Authority [31 January 1989]. United Kingdom. Court of Appeal. Annu Rev Popul Law. 1989;16:36.
  12. De Angel Yaguez R. The third sentence of the Supreme Tribunal on “wrongful birth” cases. My attempt to reconcile its doctrine with that of the 2 previous sentences. Law Hum Genome Rev. 2002;17:179–202
  13. Azzolino v. Dingfelder. South East Report Second Ser. December 10, 1985 (date of decision);337:528–42.
  14. Pierre F, Carbonne B. Patient information: responsibility of all physicians to provide proof (hospital as well as private). J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod. 2000;29:520–522
  15. JO no. 54 du 5 mars 2002. http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr.
  16. Hertling-Schaal E, Perrotin F, de Poncheville L, Lansac J, Body G. Maternal anxiety induced by prenatal diagnostic techniques: detection and management. Gynecol Obstet Fertil. 2001;29:440–446
  17. Gold F, Herve C, Taurelle R, et al. Ethical problems with the current French practice in therapeutic abortions. Part 3. Resolving moral dilemmas in foetal medicine. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod. 1995;24:727–732
  18. Tu JV, Willison DJ, Silver FL, et al. Investigators in the Registry of the Canadian Stroke Network Impracticability of informed consent in the Registry of the Canadian Stroke Network. N Engl J Med. 2004;350:1414–1421
  19. Hemminki E, Toiviainen H, Santalahti P. Views of Finnish doctors on foetal screening. BJOG. 2000;107:656–662
  20. Kucerova M, Horacek J. Biochemical screening in the second trimester of pregnancy from a genetic aspect. Ceska Gynekol. 1999;64:302–304
  21. Santalahti P, Hemminki E, Aro AR, Helenius H, Ryynanen M. Participation in prenatal screening tests and intentions concerning selective termination in Finnish maternity care. Fetal Diagn Ther. 1999;14:71–79
  22. Marteau TM, Dormandy E. Facilitating informed choice in prenatal testing: how well are we doing?. Am J Med Genet. 2001;10:185–190
  23. Mungen E, Tutuncu L, Muhcu M, Yergok YZ. Pregnancy outcome following second-trimester amniocentesis: a case–control study. Am J Perinatol. 2006;23:25–30
  24. Papantoniou NE, Daskalakis GJ, Tziotis JG, Kitmirides SJ, Mesogitis SA, Antsaklis AJ. Risk factors predisposing to fetal loss following a second trimester amniocentesis. BJOG. 2001;108:1053–1056
  25. Rouge-Maillart C, Pessaux P, Gosset D, Penneau M. Medical civil responsibility in the year 2000. Ann Chir. 2001;126:794–800

PII: S0301-2115(06)00499-4

doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2006.07.056

European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology
Volume 134, Issue 1 , Pages 9-14 , September 2007

Article Tools