Article Text
Statistics from Altmetric.com
The authors of the feature article argue against implied consent in all episiotomy cases, but allow that opt-out consent might be appropriate in limited circumstances.1 However, they do not indicate how clinicians should assess whether the pregnant person is capable of consenting in this way during an obstetric emergency. This commentary will focus on how capacity should be determined during these circumstances, suggest next steps for clinicians if capacity is deemed uncertain or absent, and discuss the appropriate role for opt-out consent in labour.
Previous studies investigating the extent to which pregnant persons retain decision-making capacity during labour have shown poor recall, a component of capacity, about consent processes during obstetric emergency procedures in 14%–49% of cases.1 2 As the feature article acknowledges, this does not mean that pregnant persons should be assumed to lack decision-making capacity during labour. Although pain, labour intensity, exhaustion and medications can make consenting processes during labour more difficult and it is possible that these factors will result in the impaired ability of the pregnant person to make informed and voluntary decisions about treatment options, this possibility of impaired capacity should not be taken as the expected outcome nor should it be used as an excuse to skip consenting procedures.1 2 The default to treat labouring patients as able to make their own decisions still stands, although signs that a person lacks …
Footnotes
Contributors The listed author contributed to creating the aim of the paper, the outline of the paper and the arguments raised in the paper, as well as wrote the manuscript.
Funding This work was funded by the Intramural Research Programme of the NIH Clinical Center.
Disclaimer The NIH had no role in the analysis, writing of the manuscript, or the decision to submit it for publication. The views expressed are the author’s and do not represent the positions or policies of the NIH Clinical Center, the National Institutes of Health or the US Department of Health and Human Services.
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.
Linked Articles
- Feature article
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- The Ulysses contract in obstetrics: a woman's choices before and during labour
- Adverse consequences of article 12 of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities for persons with mental disabilities and an alternative way forward
- The capacity to designate a surrogate is distinct from decisional capacity: normative and empirical considerations
- Assessment of patient decision-making capacity in the context of voluntary euthanasia for psychic suffering caused by psychiatric disorders: a qualitative study of approaches among Belgian physicians
- The ethics of consent during labour and birth: episiotomies
- The need for additional safeguards in the informed consent process in schizophrenia research
- Restraint in somatic healthcare: how should it be regulated?
- Transitions in decision-making authority at the end of life: a problem of law, ethics and practice in deceased donation
- Feasibility and acceptability of advance care planning in elderly Italian and Greek speaking patients as compared to English-speaking patients: an Australian cross-sectional study
- When psychiatry and bioethics disagree about patient decision making capacity (DMC)