Corporate Citizenship and Institutional Responses Post-
            <i>Dobbs</i>
            — Critical Lessons from Two Restrictive States

Lappen, Justin R.; Zahedi-Spung, Leilah; Brant, Ashley R.

doi:10.1056/nejmp2302101

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These institutional obligations arise from hospitals' general ethical duty to ensure that the care provided within their walls is high quality and provided in an ethically appropriate way, as well as the obligation to protect the integrity, safety, and welfare of the health professionals that serve them. 74 The American Medical Association has described as "essential" the responsibility of health care institutions to "[protect] the community that the institution serves as well as the integrity of the institution [and] the physicians and other professionals who practice in association with it." 75 Put more simply, if it is unacceptable to allow a patient to die when death can be prevented by an illegal but clinically appropriate medi-cal intervention, it is unacceptable for institutions to decline to make it feasible to provide such care.…”

Section: The Moral Permissibility Of Breaking Forced-gestation Lawsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Beneath the Sword of Damocles: Moral Obligations of Physicians in a Post‐Dobbs Landscape

Lyerly,

Faden,

Mello

2024

Hastings Center Report

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Since the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Dobbs vs. Jackson Women's Health Organization, a growing web of state laws restricts access to abortion. Here we consider how, ethically, doctors should respond when terminating a pregnancy is clinically indicated but state law imposes restrictions on doing so. We offer a typology of cases in which the dilemma emerges and a brief sketch of the current state of legal prohibitions against providing such care. We examine the issue from the standpoints of conscience, professional ethics, and civil disobedience and conclude that it is almost always morally permissible and praiseworthy to break the law and that, in a subset of cases, it is morally obligatory to do so. We further argue that health care institutions that employ or credential physicians to provide reproductive health care have an ethical duty to provide a basic suite of practical supports for them as they work to ethically resolve the dilemmas before them.

show abstract

Section: The Moral Permissibility Of Breaking Forced-gestation Lawsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Beneath the Sword of Damocles: Moral Obligations of Physicians in a Post‐Dobbs Landscape

Lyerly,

Faden,

Mello

2024

Hastings Center Report

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“I am putting my fear on them subconsciously”: a qualitative study of contraceptive care in the context of abortion bans in the U.S.

Zia,

Somerson,

Folse

et al. 2024

Reprod Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Since the Dobbs vs. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision in June 2022, providers throughout the U.S. have been navigating the shifting legal landscape of abortion bans, which diminish the delivery of evidence-based healthcare. The Dobbs decision has had a detrimental impact on medical training, the physician–patient relationship, and provision of medical care. However, few studies have captured the effects on providers in adjacent fields, including contraceptive care. Our objective was to examine the impact of Dobbs on contraceptive care. Methods We conducted semi-structured in-depth interviews (August 2022–July 2024), with 41 contraceptive healthcare providers across the US, with the majority (63%) in abortion restrictive states. We utilized deductive thematic analysis to assess providers’ practice changes and experiences related to contraceptive services. Results In reaction to the Dobbs decision, providers noted increased requests for contraception, especially for highly effective methods. Providers worried that certain methods, such as IUDs or emergency contraception, would become restricted, and mentioned advance provision of pills and other ways that they would try to ensure supplies. Providers also discussed that their patients were worried about threats to contraception, including for adolescents. Some expressed concern, however, that the abortion bans may prompt providers to overemphasize high-efficacy methods with directive counseling. Providers shared that it was stressful to practice in contexts of uncertainty, with shifting abortion policies affecting contraceptive care, including emergent needs such as providing contraceptive services to out-of-state patients before they go home. Several providers shared that they felt an increased importance of their role in their communities, and a deepened commitment to advocate for their patients. Conclusions Abortion restrictions profoundly impact providers’ contraceptive counseling and care. The effects of Dobbs on providers and their clinical practices underscore providers' legally precarious position in today’s reproductive health landscape. Attention to contraceptive access and person-centered care has become a salient public health need across the U.S. The long-term impacts of limited reproductive rights may stretch an already under-resourced healthcare system and further emphasize moral pressures.

show abstract

Corporate Citizenship and Institutional Responses Post- Dobbs — Critical Lessons from Two Restrictive States

Cited by 2 publications

References 4 publications

Beneath the Sword of Damocles: Moral Obligations of Physicians in a Post‐Dobbs Landscape

Beneath the Sword of Damocles: Moral Obligations of Physicians in a Post‐Dobbs Landscape

“I am putting my fear on them subconsciously”: a qualitative study of contraceptive care in the context of abortion bans in the U.S.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About