Fetal anomaly diagnosis and termination of pregnancy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this review was to discuss bioethics in prenatal diagnosis and health care after recent legislative and judicial changes affecting reproductive rights, such as the repeal of 'Roe v. Wade' in the United States. We recognize that abortion involves particular moralities that are not universal or shared by all cultures, groups, and individuals. We reviewed the historical aspects of embryology and personhood, fetal morbidity and mortality, and parental options for prenatal diagnostic testing. We examined relevant ethical issues including informed consent, the emergence of fetal pain, reproductive autonomy, the fiduciary responsibilities of pregnant mothers, and the obligations of physicians caring for the maternal-fetal dyad. The code of medical ethics includes respect for decisional privacy and the protection of information shared in confidence. When a fetal anomaly is diagnosed, pregnant mothers must be informed about the risks, burdens, and alternatives in either continuing or terminating the pregnancy. Parental choice should include the right to refuse testing, the informed choice not to know about certain genetic test results, and the right to make informed decisions about the best interests of the future child. In the diagnosis and care of fetal anomalies, moral dilemmas arise. Before fetal viability, the mother's autonomy, sense of beneficence, and personal values should be trusted and respected. Perinatal palliative care should be available to pregnant mothers whose anomalous fetus is carried to birth.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".