© Borgis - Medycyna Rodzinna 1, p. 2-10
*Konrad Wroński1, Roman Bocian2, Łukasz Dziki1, Adam Depta3, Jarosław Cywiński1, Adam Dziki1
Czy każda kobieta w ciąży powinna mieć swobodny dostęp do badań prenatalnych? Prawne aspekty wykonywania badań prenatalnych w Polsce
Should every pregnant woman have a free access to prenatal examinatons? Legal aspects of conducting prenatal examinations in Poland
1Klinika Chirurgii Ogólnej i Kolorektalnej Uniwersytetu Medycznego w Łodzi
Kierownik Kliniki: prof. dr hab. n. med. Adam Dziki
2Oddział Chirurgii Ogólnej i Naczyniowej, Wojewódzki Specjalistyczny Szpital im. dra M. Pirogowa w Łodzi
Ordynator Oddziału: dr n. med. Jerzy Okraszewski
3Zakład Finansowania Ochrony Zdrowia, Katedra Polityki Ochrony Zdrowia Uniwersytetu Medycznego w Łodzi
Kierownik Katedry: prof. dr hab. Romuald Holly
Kierownik Zakładu: prof. dr hab. Jadwiga Suchecka
Summary
Introduction:In the 21st century prenatal examinations are of fundamental importance in obstetrics. Both invasive and non-invasive examinations make it possible to diagnose most diseases in unborn babies, and in case of diagnosing genetic defects, to implement an effective treatment of a baby still in the fetal stage, or soon after birth. An early diagnosing of diseases in an unborn baby is crucial to further treatment and also to the pregnancy itself.
Objectives: The objective of this research was to become familiar with patients´ opinions about prenatal examinations in pregnant women.
Material and methods: A group of 700 patients staying in Pirogow Hospital in Lodz was requested to fill in a survey prepared by the authors, in which instruments were applied to examine patients´ opinions about prenatal examinations in pregnant women. The necessary calculations were done by means by followings packets: STATISTICA 7.1 and EXCEL 2008.
Results: The analysis of the results of this research reveals that 661 (94.4%) respondents claim that each pregnant woman should have a free access to prenatal examinations. Among 700 respondents 31 (4.4%) thought otherwise and 8 (1.1%) respondents had no opinion in this matter.
Conclusions: Prenatal examinations are more and more important in obstetrics. Future parents have a right to consciously make plans concerning their family, and also have a right to an abortion if it turns out that their baby might be born with a genetic defect. Respecting this right rests a duty on every doctor.
Key words: patients´ rights, human rights, prenatal examinations
Piśmiennictwo
1. Tremain S: Reproductive freedom, self-regulation, and the government of impairment in utero. Hypatia 2006; 21(1): 35-53. 2. Bennett B: Prenatal diagnosis, genetics and reproductive decision-making. J Law Med 2001; 9(1): 28-40. 3. Murray SJ: Care and the self: biotechnology, reproduction, and the good life. Philos Ethics Humanit Med 2007; 2: 6. 4. Decruyenaere M et al.: The complexity of reproductive decision-making in asymptomatic carriers of the Huntington mutation. Eur J Hum Genet 2007; 15(4): 453-62. 5. Remennick L: The quest for the perfect baby: why do Israeli women seek prenatal genetic testing? Sociol Health Illn 2006; 28(1): 21-53. 6. Svendsen MN, Koch L: Genetics and prevention: a policy in the making. New Genet Soc 2006; 25(1): 51-68. 7. Peterson MM: Assisted reproductive technologies and equity of access issues. J Med Ethics 2005; 31(5): 280-5. 8. Morgan D: The problems and possibilities in regulating technological frontiers: the politics of the new anxiety? J Law Med 2007; 15(1): 77-88. 9. Bennett B: Law and ethics for the bioeconomy and beyond. J Law Med 2007; 15(1): 7-13. 10. Karpin I, Bennett B: Genetic technologies and the regulation of reproductive decision-making in Australia. J Law Med 2006; 14(1): 127-34. 11. Knoppers BM, Isasi RM: Regulatory approaches to reproductive genetic testing. Hum Reprod 2004; 19(12): 2695-701. 12. Gibbons WE: Preimplantation diagnosis for genetic susceptibility. N Engl J Med 2006; 355(19): 2048. 13. Jones SL, Fallon LA: Reproductive options for individuals at risk for transmission of a genetic disorder. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs 2002; 31(2): 193-9. 14. Verlinsky Y: Designing babies: what the future holds. Reprod Biomed Online. 2005; 10 Suppl 1: 24-6. 15. Diniz D: New reproductive technologies, ethics and gender: the legislative process in Brazil. Dev World Bioeth 2002; 2(2): 144-58. 16. Robertson JA: Legal and ethical issues arising from the new genetics. J Reprod Med 1992; 37(6): 521-4. 17. King DS: Preimplantation genetic diagnosis and the ´new´ eugenics. J Med Ethics 1999; 25(2): 176-82. 18. Baird PA: New reproductive technologies: the Canadian perspective. Womens Health Issues 1996; 6(3): 156-66. 19. Bayles MD: Genetic equality and freedom of reproduction: a philosophical survey. J Value Inq 1977; 11(3): 186-207. 20. Holtzman NA: Benefits and risks of emerging genetic technologies: the need for regulation. Clin Chem 1994; 40(8): 1652-7. 21. Henifin MS: New reproductive technologies: Equity and access to reproductive health care. J Soc Issues 1993; 49(2): 61-74. 22. Jones OD: Reproductive autonomy and evolutionary biology: a regulatory framework for trait-selection technologies. Am J Law Med 1993; 19(3): 187-231. 23. Landau R: The impact of new medical technologies in human reproduction on children´s personal safety and well-being in the family. Marriage Fam Rev 1995; 21(1-2): 123-35. 24. Braun K: Not just for experts: the public debate about reprogenetics in Germany. Hastings Cent Rep 2005; 35(3): 42-9. 25. Thomas C: Preimplantation genetic diagnosis: development and regulation. Med Law 2006; 25(2): 365-78. 26. Cram D, Pope A: Preimplantation genetic diagnosis: current and future perspectives. J Law Med 2007; 15(1): 36-44. 27. Kalfoglou AL et al.: Opinions about new reproductive genetic technologies: hopes and fears for our genetic future. Fertil Steril 2005; 83(6): 1612-21. 28. Malinowski MJ: Separating predictive genetic testing from snake oil: regulation, liabilities, and lost opportunities. Jurimetrics 2000; 41(1): 23-52. 29. Bennett B: Regulating small things: genes, gametes and nanotechnology. J Law Med 2007; 15(1): 153-60. 30. Nunes R: Deafness, genetics and dysgenics. Med Health Care Philos 2006; 9(1): 25-31. 31. Abbing HR: Some legal aspects of genetic screening. Med Law 2003; 22(3): 401-9. 32. Fineschi V, Neri M, Turillazzi E: The new Italian law on assisted reproduction technology. J Med Ethics 2005; 31(9): 536-9. 33. Crockin SL: Reproduction, genetics and the law. Reprod Biomed Online 2005; 10(6): 692-704. 34. Chipman P: The moral implications of prenatal genetic testing. Penn Bioeth J 2006; 2(2): 13-6. 35. Soini S et al.: The interface between assisted reproductive technologies and genetics: technical, social, ethical and legal issues. Eur J Hum Genet 2006; 14(5): 588-645. 36. Beckman LJ, Harvey SM: Current reproductive technologies: increased access and choice? J Soc Issues 2005; 61(1): 1-20. 37. Stevenson M: Good gene hunting: commercializing safety and efficacy of home genetic test kits. J Biolaw Bus 1999; 3(1): 29-39. 38. Charo RA: Children by choice: reproductive technologies and the boundaries of personal autonomy. Nat Cell Biol. 2002; 4 Suppl: s. 23-8. 39. Matorras R: Reproductive exile versus reproductive tourism. Hum Reprod. 2005; 20(12): 3571. 40. Jackson E: Abortion, autonomy and prenatal diagnosis. Soc Leg Stud 2000; 9(4): 467-94.
otrzymano/received: 2009-01-02
zaakceptowano/accepted: 2009-01-22
Adres/address:
*Konrad Wroński
Klinika Chirurgii Ogólnej i Kolorektalnej Uniwersytetu Medycznego w Łodzi,
Uniwersytecki Szpital Kliniczny nr 5 im. gen. dyw. Bolesława Szareckiego w Łodzi
pl. Hallera 1, 90-647 Łódź
tel.: (0-42) 639 30 75
e-mail: konradwronski@poczta.wp.pl
