"I don't have a telephone to the fetus": Clinicians' conceptions of fetal patienthood in maternal-fetal surgery counseling

RATIONALE

Maternal fetal surgery (MFS) has developed rapidly since the 1960s and centers for fetal diagnosis and therapy (CFDT) have proliferated. As a result, CFDT clinicians have intervened with fetuses through pregnant bodies for decades, yet the patienthood status of the fetus and its implications for the pregnant person's autonomy have been relatively unexamined.

OBJECTIVE

Our overall research aims were threefold: (1) to explore how clinicians train for and provide counseling for MFS; (2) to examine how clinicians assess fetal patienthood and its implications; and (3) to understand clinicians' professed needs and their recommendations for education and training for the provision of MFS counseling. This focuses on aim two.

METHOD

In this qualitative study, conducted using in-depth interviews, we examined how 20 clinicians from 17 different sites understood fetal patienthood, how that affected their counseling of pregnant patients, and whether they drew on extant ethical frameworks for guidelines.

RESULTS

We identified three major themes: 1) Clinicians entered fetal surgery consultations with assumptions about fetal patienthood (frequently informed by beliefs about fetal viability, maternal attachment, and disciplinary perspectives); 2) they consciously assessed their pregnant patients' connections to their fetus to inform or re-calibrate their own understandings of fetal patienthood; and 3) they used a threshold -based conceptualization whereby the fetus achieved patienthood after crossing a symbolic boundary, often related to the clinician's ability to intervene.

CONCLUSIONS

Few clinicians invoked an extant ethical framework to determine fetal patienthood; most asserted that they did not view directive counseling toward MFS as appropriate, instead working diligently to protect pregnant patients' autonomy and rights to self-determination.

Prenatal Spina Bifida Repair: Defendable Trespassing of MOMS Criteria Results in Commendable Personalized Medicine

INTRODUCTION

We hypothesize that after publication of the quintessence of the MOMS trial, eligibility criteria for prenatal spina bifida (SB) repair may be modified if a tenable argumentation underlies this decision.

METHODS

Our first 154 fetal surgery patients were analyzed with particular focus on how many, which, and why the original eligibility criteria, set forth by the MOMS Trial Protocol, were disobeyed, and what the eventually detectable, negative and positive impacts of these deviations on outcomes were.

RESULTS

A total of 152 patients (2 missing consent) were included (100%). In 69 patients (45.4%), a total of 89 eligibility criteria were disobeyed. In 54 (35.6%) cases, the following maternal criteria were concerned: gestational age at operation of >25+6 weeks in 17 (11.2%), uterine pathologies in 13 (8.6%) women, preoperative BMI ≥35 kg/m2 in 12 (7.9%), previous hysterotomy in 7 (4.6%), previous prematurity in 3 (2%), HIV/hepatitis B in 2 (1.3%), psychosocial issues in 2 (1.3%), and placenta praevia in 1 (0.7%). In 32 (21.1%) cases, fetal criteria were disobeyed 34 times: Fetal anomaly unrelated to SB in 19 (12.5%), no/minimal evidence of hindbrain herniation in 13 (8.6%), and severe kyphosis in 2 (1.3%). We could not identify cases where non-observation of criteria led to clear-cut maternal and/or fetal disadvantages.

CONCLUSION

This study shows that MOMS trial eligibility criteria for prenatal SB repair should be modified or even abandoned with adequate medical and ethical argumentation, and with written parental informed consent after non-directive, full disclosure counseling. This clear-cut change of paradigm is a necessity as it leads toward personalized medicine, allowing more fetuses to benefit from fetal surgery than would have benefitted with the former, published, MOMS criteria in place.