Attitudes and Opinions of Young Gynecologists on Pregnancy Termination: Results of a Cross-Sectional Survey in Poland.
TOP
abortion
attitudes
opinions
physicians
pregnancy termination
Journal
International journal of environmental research and public health
ISSN: 1660-4601
Titre abrégé: Int J Environ Res Public Health
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101238455
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
31 05 2020
31 05 2020
Historique:
received:
23
04
2020
revised:
27
05
2020
accepted:
28
05
2020
entrez:
4
6
2020
pubmed:
4
6
2020
medline:
21
10
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
This paper aims to explore the attitudes and opinions of a group of Polish young gynecologists toward pregnancy termination. An anonymous questionnaire was completed by physicians who participated in obligatory trainee courses held in 2019 in Warsaw. The study group included 71 physicians with an average age of 29 years (SD 3.05). A considerable number of the physicians accepted terminations for medical reasons up to the end of pregnancy, especially in cases of lethal defects (46%) and a serious disease in the mother (34%). Only 6% of the group of gynecologists not performing terminations claimed that the procedure was contrary to their conscience, and 62% of them stated that such procedures were not performed at their hospital. Terminations would be performed by 90% of the respondents in cases of lethal defects of the fetus and by 80% if severe irreversible fetal defects were diagnosed. The main problem associated with the inaccessibility of pregnancy termination in Poland is not linked to individuals, meaning medical personnel and the possibility of invoking the conscience clause, but probably to the lack of approval for terminations granted by hospital supervisors. Adequate knowledge on pregnancy termination procedures, fetal defects, and diseases in the mother translated into the changes of opinions on pregnancy terminations.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
This paper aims to explore the attitudes and opinions of a group of Polish young gynecologists toward pregnancy termination.
METHOD
An anonymous questionnaire was completed by physicians who participated in obligatory trainee courses held in 2019 in Warsaw.
RESULTS
The study group included 71 physicians with an average age of 29 years (SD 3.05). A considerable number of the physicians accepted terminations for medical reasons up to the end of pregnancy, especially in cases of lethal defects (46%) and a serious disease in the mother (34%). Only 6% of the group of gynecologists not performing terminations claimed that the procedure was contrary to their conscience, and 62% of them stated that such procedures were not performed at their hospital. Terminations would be performed by 90% of the respondents in cases of lethal defects of the fetus and by 80% if severe irreversible fetal defects were diagnosed.
CONCLUSIONS
The main problem associated with the inaccessibility of pregnancy termination in Poland is not linked to individuals, meaning medical personnel and the possibility of invoking the conscience clause, but probably to the lack of approval for terminations granted by hospital supervisors. Adequate knowledge on pregnancy termination procedures, fetal defects, and diseases in the mother translated into the changes of opinions on pregnancy terminations.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32486362
pii: ijerph17113895
doi: 10.3390/ijerph17113895
pmc: PMC7311986
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Références
BMC Med Ethics. 2018 Apr 27;19(1):31
pubmed: 29703258
Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 2019 Apr;24(2):124-129
pubmed: 30931638
J Med Ethics. 2009 Jun;35(6):390-4
pubmed: 19482986
J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2017 May;30(10):1249-1253
pubmed: 27442264
Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 2018 Feb;23(1):24-31
pubmed: 29436865
Biomed Res Int. 2017;2017:6073167
pubmed: 28466013
Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 2015;20(4):272-82
pubmed: 25592398
Facts Views Vis Obgyn. 2010;2(4):278-86
pubmed: 25009715
BMC Med Ethics. 2019 Jan 31;20(1):11
pubmed: 30700292
J Med Ethics. 2001 Jun;27(3):165-71
pubmed: 11417023
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019 Sep 14;16(18):
pubmed: 31540023
JAMA. 2003 Oct 1;290(13):1777-8
pubmed: 14519717
Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2020 Feb;63:56-66
pubmed: 31937493
Reprod Health. 2017 Mar 14;14(1):39
pubmed: 28288649
AJP Rep. 2020 Jan;10(1):e121-e127
pubmed: 32257593
Health Serv Res Manag Epidemiol. 2019 Apr 15;6:2333392819841211
pubmed: 31020009
World Health Popul. 2012;14(1):5-18
pubmed: 23135069
J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2018 Nov;31(22):3033-3038
pubmed: 28760050
Adv Clin Exp Med. 2019 Mar;28(3):313-318
pubmed: 30659786
J Med Ethics. 2014 Oct;40(10):710-3
pubmed: 23963257
Stud Fam Plann. 2003 Dec;34(4):277-84
pubmed: 14758609
Obstet Gynecol Surv. 2016 Dec;71(12):721-733
pubmed: 28005135
BMC Med Educ. 2016 Jan 12;16:8
pubmed: 26758763
BMJ Sex Reprod Health. 2019 Dec 30;:
pubmed: 31888950
BJOG. 2006 Dec;113(12):1402-11
pubmed: 17081178
Med J Aust. 2008 Jan 21;188(2):100-3
pubmed: 18205583
Br J Anaesth. 2020 Mar;124(3):e115-e116
pubmed: 31948679
J Clin Nurs. 2020 May;29(9-10):1513-1526
pubmed: 32045070
Health Hum Rights. 2017 Jun;19(1):55-68
pubmed: 28630541