Medical ethicists offer a moral argument for abortion in the case of medical emergencies

Abstract: https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M24-0276    

URL goes live when the embargo lifts     

Medical ethicists from Oakland University William Beaumont School of Medicine offer a moral argument to support the provision of abortion in the case of pregnancy emergencies, using the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) as a rationale. The commentary is published in Annals of Internal Medicine.

The authors suggest that any argument over public policy should use public reason, identifying key premises that are contestable using public reason, and assert the precautionary principle. For example, some states, including Texas, have challenged the legal authority of EMTALA to require abortions in pregnancy emergencies and this challenge was supported by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Rejecting the pregnancy emergency inclusion in EMTALA is flawed, the authors say, because it is unclear at what precise point the risk to the health of the pregnant patient outweighs the death to the fetus. This threshold, like many in medicine, many be difficult to define but is still important to balance in the treatment of patients. The basic argumentative method may be applicable when assessing other challenges to the requirement and may also be apt when advocating for abortion exceptions beyond life and health, such as in the case of rape, incest, or fatal fetal anomalies.

Media contacts: For an embargoed PDF, please contact Angela Collom at [email protected]. To speak with the corresponding author, Abram Brummett, PhD, please contact [email protected].