Socio-ethical Issues of Prenatal Counselling: A Qualitative Study of Women's Experiences with Prenatal Counselling in the Greater Toronto Area
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis focuses on the results of qualitative research surveying the verbal information pregnant women received from their family practitioners and obstetricians. It explored socio-ethical issues of prenatal counselling. The general results of this research suggest there is a marked absence of prenatal counselling surrounding all aspects of prenatal care, which ultimately affected labours and deliveries. The absence of counselling, in some cases, combined with breaches of guiding ethical principles, even led to trauma, by any accepted definition of “trauma” in the mental health context. These were the results found in a sample of “good outcomes” where no babies were stillborn, born with birth defects or congenital health problems, and no babies were kept in neonatal units due to complications. The trauma suffered by some women was so severe, it led to a postponement of second pregnancies as a means of avoiding further trauma at the hands of medical practitioners. This thesis suggests that not only are women being harmed by the accepted prenatal standard of care in Toronto hospitals (which, a thorough literature review suggests, has not substantially changed since the 1890s), but legal remedies for unnecessary pain and suffering ought to be made available to traumatized women, known as wrongful labour and delivery. “Wrongful labour and delivery” would define a labour and delivery that was unnecessarily traumatic, a labour that involved unnecessary pain and suffering, which could include fright due to the omission of pertinent information that could have easily prevented the trauma, or lessened the trauma.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".