Policy statement--Physician refusal to provide information or treatment on the basis of claims of conscience

The logistics of withdrawing life-sustaining medical treatment in the neonatal intensive care unit

Withdrawal of life sustaining medical treatments is a common mode of death in the neonatal intensive care unit. Shared decision making and communication are crucial steps prior to, during and after a withdrawal of life sustaining medical treatments. Discussion should include the steps to occur during the withdrawal. Physicians should recommend appropriate withdrawal steps based on family goals. Stepwise approach should be taken only if a family requests. Care should continue for the family and staff after the withdrawal and the infant's death.

Ensuring privacy in telemedicine: Ethical and clinical challenges

Data privacy in telemedicine has been extensively considered and reviewed in the literature, such as explorations of consent, who can access information, and the security of electronic systems. However, privacy breaches are also a potential concern in the physical setting and surroundings of the patient. Here we review clinical situations in which there is unanticipated loss of privacy, as well as potential physical and psychological safety concerns for the patient and others when privacy is limited. We identify ethical concerns and explore the challenges of supporting full true autonomous decision-making in this situation. We close with preliminary recommendations at the patient, clinician, and systems levels to help ensure privacy is maintained.

Ethical considerations for theatre teams in organ donation after circulatory determination of death

Transplant surgery is an area that gives rise to a number of ethical considerations. As medicine continues to expand the boundaries of what is technically possible, we must consider the ethical implications of our interventions, not solely on patients and society, but also on those asked to provide that care. Here, we consider physician participation in procedures required to provide patient care in the context of the ethical convictions held by the physician, with an emphasis on organ donation after circulatory determination of death. Strategies that can be used to mitigate any potential negative impact on the psychological well-being of members of the patient care team are considered.

Options Counseling for the Pregnant Adolescent Patient

Although teenage pregnancy rates have decreased over the past 30 years, many adolescents become pregnant every year. It is important for pediatricians to have the ability and the resources to make a timely pregnancy diagnosis in their adolescent patients and provide them with nonjudgmental counseling that includes the full range of pregnancy options. Counseling includes an unbiased discussion of the adolescent's options to continue or terminate the pregnancy, supporting the adolescent in the decision-making process, and referring the adolescent to appropriate resources and services. It is important for pediatricians to be familiar with laws and policies impacting access to abortion care, especially for minor adolescents, as well as laws that seek to limit health care professionals' provision of unbiased pregnancy options counseling and referrals, either for abortion care or continuation of pregnancy in accordance with the adolescent's choice. Pediatricians who choose not to provide such discussions should promptly refer pregnant adolescent patients to a health care professional who will offer developmentally appropriate pregnancy options counseling that includes the full range of pregnancy options. Pediatricians should be aware of and oppose policies that restrict their ability to provide pregnant adolescents with unbiased counseling that includes the full range of pregnancy options. This approach to pregnancy options counseling has not changed since the original 1989 American Academy of Pediatrics statement on this issue.

Are conscientious objectors morally obligated to refer?

In this paper, we argue that providers who conscientiously refuse to provide legal and professionally accepted medical care are not always morally required to refer their patients to willing providers. Indeed, we will argue that refusing to refer is morally admirable in certain instances. In making the case, we show that belief in a sweeping moral duty to refer depends on an implicit assumption that the procedures sanctioned by legal and professional norms are ethically permissible. Focusing on examples of female genital cutting, clitoridectomy and 'normalizing' surgery for children with intersex traits, we argue that this assumption is untenable and that providers are not morally required to refer when refusing to perform genuinely unethical procedures. The fact that acceptance of our thesis would force us to face the challenge of distinguishing between ethical and unethical medical practices is a virtue. This is the central task of medical ethics, and we must confront it rather than evade it.

Referral vs Transfer of Care: Ethical Options When Values Differ

Conscientious objection (CO) in medicine is where a healthcare professional (HCP) firmly opposes, with an expression of reasoned disapproval, a legally available procedure or treatment that is proscribed by one's conscience. While there remains controversy regarding whether conscientious objection should be a part of medicine, even among those who support CO state that if the HCP does not provide the requested service such as abortion, physician assisted suicide, etc., there is an obligation on the part of the objecting HCP to refer to someone who will provide it. However, referral makes the referring HCP complicit in the act the referrer believes to be immoral since the referrer has a duty to know that the HCP who will accept the patient is not only able to do the procedure but is competent in its performance as well. The referrer thus facilitates the process. Since one has a moral obligation to limit complicity with immoral actions when it cannot be avoided, the alternative is to allow the patient to transfer care to another when the patient has made the autonomous decision to reject the advice of the HCP.

Conscientious Objection to Providing Gender Health Care in Pediatric Training: Balancing the Vulnerability of Transgender Youth and the Vulnerability of Pediatric Residents

Within pediatric graduate medical education, the care of transgender youth presents opportunities for deepening learners' understanding of equity, access, the role of the physician as an advocate, and health disparities caused by stigma and minority stress. However, when a pediatric resident objects to providing health care to this uniquely vulnerable population owing to their personal beliefs and values, how should pediatrician-educators respond? Important reasons to respect healthcare professionals' conscience have been described in the scholarly literature; however, equally important concerns have also been raised about the extent to which conscientious objection should be permitted in a pluralistic society, particularly given power differentials that favor healthcare professionals and grants them a monopoly over certain services. In the context of medical education, however, residents are in a unique position: they are simultaneously learners and employees, and although privileged relative to their patients, they are also vulnerable in relation to the hierarchy of healthcare and of institutions. We must find a compassionate balance between nurturing the evolving conscience of students and trainees and protecting the health and well-being of our most vulnerable patients. Educators have an obligation to foster empathy, mitigate bias, and mentor their learners, regardless of beliefs, but in some cases, they may recognize that there are limits: patients' welfare ultimately takes precedence and trainees should be guided toward alternative career paths. We explore the limits of conscientious objection in medical training and propose a framework for pediatrician-educators to support learners and patients in challenging circumstances.

Long-Acting Reversible Contraception: Specific Issues for Adolescents

Long-acting reversible contraceptives are the most effective methods to prevent pregnancy and also offer noncontraceptive benefits such as reducing menstrual blood flow and dysmenorrhea. The safety and efficacy of long-acting reversible contraception are well established for adolescents, but the rate of use remains low for this population. The pediatrician can play a key role in increasing access to long-acting reversible contraception for adolescents by providing accurate patient-centered contraception counseling and by understanding and addressing the barriers to use.

Barrier Protection Use by Adolescents During Sexual Activity

Rates of sexual activity, pregnancies, and births among adolescents have continued to decline during the past decade to historic lows. Despite these positive trends, many adolescents remain at risk for unintended pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections (STIs). When used consistently and correctly, latex and synthetic barrier methods reduce the risk of many STIs, including HIV, and pregnancy. This update of the 2013 policy statement is intended to assist pediatricians in understanding and supporting the use of barrier methods by their patients to prevent unintended pregnancies and STIs and address obstacles to their use.

Emerging Issues in Male Adolescent Sexual and Reproductive Health Care

Pediatricians are encouraged to address male adolescent sexual and reproductive health on a regular basis, including taking a sexual history, discussing healthy sexuality, performing an appropriate physical examination, providing patient-centered and age-appropriate anticipatory guidance, and administering appropriate vaccinations. These services can be provided to male adolescent patients in a confidential and culturally appropriate manner, can promote healthy sexual relationships and responsibility, can and involve parents in age-appropriate discussions about sexual health.

Emergency contraception: unresolved clinical, ethical and legal quandaries still linger

Emergency contraception (EC) has been prescribed for decades, in order to lessen the risk of unplanned and unwanted pregnancy following unprotected intercourse, ordinary contraceptive failure, or rape. EC and the linked aspect of unintended pregnancy undoubtedly constitute highly relevant public health issues, in that they involve women's self-determination, reproductive freedom and family planning. Most European countries regulate EC access quite effectively, with solid information campaigns and supply mechanisms, based on various recommendations from international institutions herein examined. However, there is still disagreement on whether EC drugs should be available without a physician's prescription and on the reimbursement policies that should be implemented. In addition, the rights of health care professionals who object to EC on conscience grounds have been subject to considerable legal and ethical scrutiny, in light of their potential to damage patients who need EC drugs in a timely fashion. Ultimately, reproductive health, freedom and conscience-based refusal on the part of operators are elements that have proven extremely hard to reconcile; hence, it is essential to strike a reasonable balance for the sake of everyone's rights and well-being.

Emergency Contraception

Despite significant declines over the past 2 decades, the United States continues to experience birth rates among teenagers that are significantly higher than other high-income nations. Use of emergency contraception (EC) within 120 hours after unprotected or underprotected intercourse can reduce the risk of pregnancy. Emergency contraceptive methods include oral medications labeled and dedicated for use as EC by the US Food and Drug Administration (ulipristal and levonorgestrel), the "off-label" use of combined oral contraceptives, and insertion of a copper intrauterine device. Indications for the use of EC include intercourse without use of contraception; condom breakage or slippage; missed or late doses of contraceptives, including the oral contraceptive pill, contraceptive patch, contraceptive ring, and injectable contraception; vomiting after use of oral contraceptives; and sexual assault. Our aim in this updated policy statement is to (1) educate pediatricians and other physicians on available emergency contraceptive methods; (2) provide current data on the safety, efficacy, and use of EC in teenagers; and (3) encourage routine counseling and advance EC prescription as 1 public health strategy to reduce teenaged pregnancy.

Ethical position of medical practitioners who refuse to treat unvaccinated children

Recent reports in Australia have suggested that some medical practitioners are refusing to treat children who have not been vaccinated, a practice that has been observed in the USA and parts of Europe for some years. This behaviour, if it is indeed occurring in Australia, has not been supported by the Australian Medical Association, although there is broad support for medical practitioners in general having the right to conscientious objection. This paper examines the ethical underpinnings of conscientious objection and whether the right to conscientious objection can be applied to the refusal to treat unvaccinated children. The implications of such a decision will also be discussed, to assess whether refusal to treat unvaccinated children is ethically justifiable. The best interests of both existing and new patients are crucially important in a doctor's practice, and the tension between these two groups of patients are contemplated in the arguments below. It is argued that on balance, the refusal to treat unvaccinated children constitutes unjustified discrimination.

When Residents Let Conscience Be Their Guide: Professional Development and Educational Opportunity

Residency is a time of professional identity formation. During this time, residents may first be exposed to conflicts between professional duties and personal beliefs which may lead to a request for a conscience-based exemption. Faculty, whether the supervising attending or the program director, have an important role in the professional and ethical development of residents by acknowledging and supporting residents as they encounter these potential conflicts. In this paper, we highlight three areas of unique issues that arise within the context of residency training programs when a resident makes a request to be excused from clinical duties based on personal conscience: namely, the maintenance of educational standards, the burdens that may be placed on colleagues, and the responsibility for faculty to foster the professional development of ethically sensitive pediatricians.

Diagnosis of Pregnancy and Providing Options Counseling for the Adolescent Patient

The American Academy of Pediatrics policy statement "Options Counseling for the Pregnant Adolescent Patient" recommends the basic content of the pediatrician's counseling for an adolescent facing a new diagnosis of pregnancy. However, options counseling is just one aspect of what may be one of the more challenging scenarios in the pediatric office. Pediatricians must remain alert to the possibility of pregnancy among their adolescent female patients. When discovering symptoms suggestive of pregnancy, pediatricians must obtain a relevant history, perform diagnostic testing and properly interpret the results, and understand the significance of the results from the patient perspective and reveal them to the patient in a sensitive manner. If the patient is indeed pregnant, the pediatrician, in addition to providing comprehensive options counseling, may need to help recruit adult support for the patient and should offer continued assistance to the adolescent and her family after the office visit. All pediatricians should be aware of the legal aspects of adolescent reproductive care and the resources for pregnant adolescents in their communities. This clinical report presents a more comprehensive view of the evaluation and management of pregnancy in the adolescent patient and a context for options counseling.

Options Counseling for the Pregnant Adolescent Patient

Each year, more than 500 000 girls and young women younger than 20 years become pregnant. It is important for pediatricians to have the ability and the resources in their offices to make a timely pregnancy diagnosis in their adolescent patients and provide them with nonjudgmental pregnancy options counseling. Counseling includes an unbiased discussion of the adolescent's legal options to either continue or terminate her pregnancy, supporting the adolescent in the decision-making process, and referring the adolescent to appropriate resources and services. Pediatricians who choose not to provide such discussions should promptly refer pregnant adolescent patients to a health care professional who will offer developmentally appropriate pregnancy options counseling. This approach to pregnancy options counseling has not changed since the original 1989 American Academy of Pediatrics statement on this issue.

Guidance on Forgoing Life-Sustaining Medical Treatment

Pediatric health care is practiced with the goal of promoting the best interests of the child. Treatment generally is rendered under a presumption in favor of sustaining life. However, in some circumstances, the balance of benefits and burdens to the child leads to an assessment that forgoing life-sustaining medical treatment (LSMT) is ethically supportable or advisable. Parents are given wide latitude in decision-making concerning end-of-life care for their children in most situations. Collaborative decision-making around LSMT is improved by thorough communication among all stakeholders, including medical staff, the family, and the patient, when possible, throughout the evolving course of the patient's illness. Clear communication of overall goals of care is advised to promote agreed-on plans, including resuscitation status. Perceived disagreement among the team of professionals may be stressful to families. At the same time, understanding the range of professional opinions behind treatment recommendations is critical to informing family decision-making. Input from specialists in palliative care, ethics, pastoral care, and other disciplines enhances support for families and medical staff when decisions to forgo LSMT are being considered. Understanding specific applicability of institutional, regional, state, and national regulations related to forgoing LSMT is important to practice ethically within existing legal frameworks. This guidance represents an update of the 1994 statement from the American Academy of Pediatrics on forgoing LSMT.

Conflicts of conscience in the neonatal intensive care unit: Perspectives of Alberta

Background:

Limited knowledge of the experiences of conflicts of conscience found in nursing literature.

Objectives:

To explore the individual experiences of a conflict of conscience for neonatal nurses in Alberta.

Research design:

Interpretive description was selected to help situate the findings in a meaningful clinical context.

Participants and research context:

Five interviews with neonatal nurses working in Neonatal Intensive Care Units throughout Alberta.

Ethical consideration:

Ethics approval from the Health Research Ethics Board at the University of Alberta.

Findings:

Three common themes emerged from the interviews: the unforgettable conflict with pain and suffering, finding the nurse’s voice, and the unique proximity of nurses.

Discussion and conclusion:

The nurses described a conflict of conscience when the neonate in their care experienced undermanaged pain and unnecessary suffering. During these experiences, they felt guilty, sad, hopeless, and powerless when they were unable to follow their conscience. Informal ways to follow their conscience were employed before declaration of conscientious objection was considered. This study highlights the vital importance of respecting a conflict of conscience to maintain the moral integrity of neonatal nurses and exposes the complexities of conscientious objection.

Speak no evil? Conscience and the duty to inform, refer or transfer care

This paper argues that the type of conscience claims made in last decade's spate of cases involving pharmacists' objections to filling birth control prescriptions and cases such as Ms. Means and Mercy Health Partners of Michigan, and even the Affordable Care Act and the Little Sisters of the Poor, as different as they appear to be from each other, share a common element that ties them together and makes them fundamentally different in kind from traditional claims of conscience about which a practical consensus emerged in the 1980s and 1990s. This difference in kind is profoundly significant; so much so, we contend, that it puts them at odds with the normative basis for protecting conscience claims in United States health care settings in the first place, making them illegitimate. Finally, we argue that, given the illegitimacy of these contemporary claims of conscience, physicians and other health professionals must honor their well-established standing obligations to provide informed consent and refer or transfer care even if the service requested or needed is at odds with their own core moral beliefs-a requirement that is in line with the aforementioned practical consensus on traditional claims of conscience.

Whose Choice? Developing a Unifying Ethical Framework for Conscience Laws in Health Care

Since abortion became legal nationwide, federal and state "conscience clauses" have been established to define the context in which health professionals may decline to participate in contested services. Patients and health care providers may act according to conscience in making health care decisions and in deciding whether to abstain from or to participate in contested services. Historically, however, conscience clauses largely have equated conscience in health care with provider abstinence from such services. We propose a framework to analyze the ethical implications of conscience laws. There is a rich literature on the exercise of conscience in the clinical encounter. This essay addresses the need to ensure that policy, too, is grounded in an ethical framework. We argue that the ideal law meets three standards: it protects patients' exercise of conscience, it safeguards health care providers' rights of conscience, and it does not contradict standards of ethical conduct established by professional societies. We have chosen Illinois as a test of our framework because it has one of the nation's broadest conscience clauses and because an amendment to ensure that women receive consistent access to contested services has just passed in the state legislature. Without such an amendment, Illinois law fails all three standards of our framework. If signed by the governor, the amended law will provide protections for patients' positive claims of conscience. We recommend further protections for providers' positive claims as well. Enacting such changes would offer a model for how ethics-based analysis could be applied to similar policies nationwide.

Reframing Conscientious Care: Providing Abortion Care When Law and Conscience Collide

Much of the debate on conscience has addressed the ethics of refusal: the rights of providers to refuse to perform procedures to which they object and the interests of the patients who might be harmed by their refusals. But conscience can also be a positive force, grounding decision about offering care.

MANDATING DISCLOSURE OF CONSCIENCE-BASED LIMITATIONS ON MEDICAL PRACTICE

Stakeholders in law, medicine, and religion are unable to reach consensus about how best to address conflicts between healthcare providers' conscientious objections to treatment and patients' rights to access medical care. Conscience laws that protect objecting providers and institutions from liability are criticized as too broad by patient advocates and as too narrow by defenders of religious freedom. This Article posits that some of the tension between these stakeholders could be mitigated by statutory recognition of a duty on the part of healthcare institutions or providers to disclose conscientiously motivated limitations on practice. While this solution would not guarantee a patient's access to treatment, referral, or information from any given provider, it would prevent some of the more egregious cases of denial of treatment--those where patients are not made aware that a legal and clinically defensible treatment option is excluded from a provider's or institution's scope of practice and so have no opportunity to seek care elsewhere.

An official American Thoracic Society policy statement: managing conscientious objections in intensive care medicine

RATIONALE

Intensive care unit (ICU) clinicians sometimes have a conscientious objection (CO) to providing or disclosing information about a legal, professionally accepted, and otherwise available medical service. There is little guidance about how to manage COs in ICUs.

OBJECTIVES

To provide clinicians, hospital administrators, and policymakers with recommendations for managing COs in the critical care setting.

METHODS

This policy statement was developed by a multidisciplinary expert committee using an iterative process with a diverse working group representing adult medicine, pediatrics, nursing, patient advocacy, bioethics, philosophy, and law.

MAIN RESULTS

The policy recommendations are based on the dual goals of protecting patients' access to medical services and protecting the moral integrity of clinicians. Conceptually, accommodating COs should be considered a "shield" to protect individual clinicians' moral integrity rather than as a "sword" to impose clinicians' judgments on patients. The committee recommends that: (1) COs in ICUs be managed through institutional mechanisms, (2) institutions accommodate COs, provided doing so will not impede a patient's or surrogate's timely access to medical services or information or create excessive hardships for other clinicians or the institution, (3) a clinician's CO to providing potentially inappropriate or futile medical services should not be considered sufficient justification to forgo the treatment against the objections of the patient or surrogate, and (4) institutions promote open moral dialogue and foster a culture that respects diverse values in the critical care setting.

CONCLUSIONS

This American Thoracic Society statement provides guidance for clinicians, hospital administrators, and policymakers to address clinicians' COs in the critical care setting.

Toward accommodating physicians' conscientious objections: an argument for public disclosure

This paper aims to demonstrate how public disclosure can be used to balance physicians' conscientious objections with their professional obligations to patients--specifically respect for patient autonomy and informed consent. It is argued here that physicians should be permitted to exercise conscientious objections, but that they have a professional obligation to provide advance notification to patients about those objections. It is further argued here that public disclosure is an appropriate and ethically justifiable limit to the principle of advance notification. The argument for publicly disclosing physicians' conscientious objections is made in this paper by discussing three practical benefits of public disclosure in medicine, and then addressing how publicly disclosing physicians' conscientious objections is not an undue invasion of privacy. Three additional concerns with public disclosure of physicians' conscientious objections are briefly addressed--potential harassment of physicians, workplace discrimination, and mischaracterising physicians' professional aptitude--concluding that each of these concerns requires further deliberation in the realm of business ethics.

Physician Dismissal of Families Who Refuse Vaccination: An Ethical Assessment

Thousands of U.S. parents choose to refuse or delay the administration of selected vaccines to their children each year, and some choose not to vaccinate their children at all. While most physicians continue to provide care to these families over time, using each visit as an opportunity to educate and encourage vaccination, an increasing number of physicians are choosing to dismiss these families from their practice unless they agree to vaccinate their children. This paper will examine this emerging trend along with the reasons given by those who advocate such an approach. I will argue that the strategy of refusing to allow families into a clinic unless they agree to vaccinate their children is misguided, and the arguments for doing so fail to stand up to close scrutiny. Such a strategy does not benefit the child or the health of the community, and may have a negative impact on both. Furthermore, some of the arguments in support of dismissal policies ignore the importance of professional obligation and appear to favor self-interest over the interest of the patient.

Trisomy 18 and complex congenital heart disease: seeking the threshold benefit

A prenatal diagnosis of ductal-dependent, complex congenital heart disease was made in a fetus with trisomy 18. The parents requested that the genetic diagnosis be excluded from all medical and surgical decision-making and that all life-prolonging therapies be made available to their infant. There was conflict among the medical team about what threshold of neonatal benefit could outweigh maternal and neonatal treatment burdens. A prenatal ethics consultation was requested.

Emergency contraception

Despite significant declines over the past 2 decades, the United States continues to have teen birth rates that are significantly higher than other industrialized nations. Use of emergency contraception can reduce the risk of pregnancy if used up to 120 hours after unprotected intercourse or contraceptive failure and is most effective if used in the first 24 hours. Indications for the use of emergency contraception include sexual assault, unprotected intercourse, condom breakage or slippage, and missed or late doses of hormonal contraceptives, including the oral contraceptive pill, contraceptive patch, contraceptive ring (ie, improper placement or loss/expulsion), and injectable contraception. Adolescents younger than 17 years must obtain a prescription from a physician to access emergency contraception in most states. In all states, both males and females 17 years or older can obtain emergency contraception without a prescription. Adolescents are more likely to use emergency contraception if it has been prescribed in advance of need. The aim of this updated policy statement is to (1) educate pediatricians and other physicians on available emergency contraceptive methods; (2) provide current data on safety, efficacy, and use of emergency contraception in teenagers; and (3) encourage routine counseling and advance emergency-contraception prescription as 1 part of a public health strategy to reduce teen pregnancy. This policy focuses on pharmacologic methods of emergency contraception used within 120 hours of unprotected or underprotected coitus for the prevention of unintended pregnancy. Emergency contraceptive medications include products labeled and dedicated for use as emergency contraception by the US Food and Drug Administration (levonorgestrel and ulipristal) and the "off-label" use of combination oral contraceptives.

Survey of neonatologists' attitudes toward limiting life-sustaining treatments in the neonatal intensive care unit

OBJECTIVE

To understand neonatologists' attitudes toward end-of-life (EOL) management in clinical scenarios, EOL ethical concepts and resource utilization.

STUDY DESIGN

American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) Perinatal section members completed an anonymous online survey. Respondents indicated preferences in limiting life-sustaining treatments in four clinical scenarios, ranked agreement with EOL-care ethics statements, indicated outside resources previously used and provided demographic information.

RESULT

In all, 451 surveys were analyzed. Across clinical scenarios and as general ethical concepts, withdrawal of mechanical ventilation in severely affected patients was most accepted by respondents; withdrawal of artificial nutrition and hydration was least accepted. One-third of neonatologists did not agree that non-initiation of treatment is ethically equivalent to withdrawal. Around 20% of neonatologists would not defer care if uncomfortable with a parent's request. Respondents' resources included ethics committees, AAP guidelines and legal counsel/courts.

CONCLUSION

Challenges to providing just, unified EOL care strategies are discussed, including deferring care, limiting artificial nutrition/hydration and conditions surrounding ventilator withdrawal.

Obstetrician-gynecologists' objections to and willingness to help patients obtain an abortion

OBJECTIVE

To describe obstetrician-gynecologists' (ob-gyns') views and willingness to help women seeking abortion in a variety of clinical scenarios.

METHODS

We conducted a mailed survey of 1,800 U.S. ob-gyns. We presented seven scenarios in which patients sought abortions. For each, respondents indicated if they morally objected to abortion and if they would help patients obtain an abortion. We analyzed predictors of objection and assistance.

RESULTS

The response rate was 66%. Objection to abortion ranged from 16% (cardiopulmonary disease) to 82% (sex selection); willingness to assist ranged from 64% (sex selection) to 93% (cardiopulmonary disease). Excluding sex selection, objection was less likely among ob-gyns who were female (odds ratio [OR] 0.5, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.4-0.8), urban (OR 0.3, 95% CI 0.1-0.7), or Jewish (OR 0.3, 95% CI 0.1-0.7) compared with male, rural, or religiously unaffiliated ob-gyns. Objection was more likely among ob-gyns from the South (OR 1.9, 95% CI 1.2-3.0) or Midwest (OR 1.9, 95% CI 1.2-3.1), and among Catholic, Evangelical Protestant, or Muslim ob-gyns, or those for whom religion was most important, compared with reference. Among ob-gyns who objected to abortion in a given case, approximately two-thirds would help patients obtain an abortion. Excluding sex selection, assistance despite objection was more likely among female (OR 1.8, 95% CI 1.1-2.9) and United States-born ob-gyns (OR 2.2, 95% CI 1.1-4.7) and less likely among southern ob-gyns (OR 0.3, 95% CI 0.2-0.6) or those for whom religion was most important (OR 0.3, 95% CI 0.1-0.7).

CONCLUSION

Most ob-gyns help patients obtain an abortion even when they morally object to abortion in that case. Willingness to assist varies by clinical context and physician characteristics.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

II.

Pediatric emergency health care providers' knowledge, attitudes, and experiences regarding emergency contraception

OBJECTIVES

The objective was to describe knowledge, attitudes, and experiences regarding emergency contraception (EC) among pediatric emergency health care providers (HCPs).

METHODS

This multicenter, focus group study elicited thoughts and experiences from pediatric emergency HCPs about EC. Participants were physicians, nurse practitioners (NPs), and nurses in one of three urban, geographically distinct, pediatric emergency departments (EDs). A professional moderator used a semistructured format for sessions, which were audiotaped, transcribed, and analyzed for recurrent themes. Participants provided demographic information and completed a written survey evaluating EC knowledge.

RESULTS

Eighty-five HCPs (41 physicians, eight NPs, and 36 nurses) participated in 12 focus groups. Overall knowledge about EC was poor. Participants identified barriers including cost, privacy, knowledge, and provider refusal. Provision of EC for adolescents was supported by the majority of physicians and NPs; however, many nurses were not supportive, especially following consensual intercourse. The authors identified use of social judgment by nurses as a novel barrier to EC provision. The majority of HCPs did not support screening for potential EC need. The majority of physicians and NPs felt obligated to provide adolescents with all contraceptive options, while more nurses supported provider refusal to provide EC.

CONCLUSIONS

This study identified important HCP perceptions and barriers about EC provision in the pediatric ED. These findings may inform future efforts to improve EC provision for adolescents. Specifically, future studies to evaluate the differences in attitudes between nurses, physicians, and NPs, and the use of social judgment in EC provision, are warranted.