Surg J (N Y) 2015; 01(01): e28-e34
DOI: 10.1055/s-0035-1567880
Perspective
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Perpetuating Myths, Fables, and Fairy Tales: A Half Century of Electronic Fetal Monitoring

Thomas P. Sartwelle
1   Beirne, Maynard and Parsons, LLP, Houston, Texas, United States
,
James C. Johnston
2   Legal Medicine Consultants, Seattle, Washington, United States
,
Berna Arda
3   Department of Medical Ethics, University of Ankara, Ankara, Turkey
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

10 September 2015

09 October 2015

Publication Date:
20 November 2015 (online)

Abstract

Electronic fetal monitoring (EFM) entered clinical medical practice at the same time bioethics became reality. Bioethics changed the medical ethics landscape by replacing the traditional Hippocratic benign paternalism with patient autonomy, informed consent, beneficence, and nonmaleficence. But EFM use represents the polar opposite of bioethics' revered principles—it has been documented for half a century to be completely ineffectual, used without informed consent, and harmful to mothers and newborns alike. Despite EFM's ethical misuse, there has been no outcry from the bioethical world. Why? This article answers that question, discussing EFM's history and the reasons it was issued an ethics pass. And it explores the reason that even today mothers are still treated with blatant medical paternalism, deprived of autonomy and informed consent, and subjected to real medical risks under the guise that EFM is an essential safety device when in fact it is used almost solely to protect physicians and hospitals from cerebral palsy lawsuits.