Academic journal article Issues in Law & Medicine

Preface

Academic journal article Issues in Law & Medicine

Preface

Article excerpt

This edition features an article by professor Priscilla K. Coleman, Ph.D. In this article, associations between several personal and contextual predictors of negative post-abortion mental health outcomes are explored using a large national sample of U.S. women who sought out post-abortion care from a crisis pregnancy center. Well-established measures of depression, anxiety, and substance abuse in addition to a newly developed assessment of abortion-related outcomes, the Post-Abortion Psychological and Relational Adjustment Scale (PAPRAS), were employed as the criteria in regression models. When the PAPRAS served as the outcome measure, the abortion context variables as a group accounted for 45.8% of the variance in women's post-abortion psychological and relational adjustment scores. Using the same sets of predictors in a series of regression models, only 3.5% to 8.8% of the variance was explained. Based on psychometric analysis of the PAPRAS, this newly developed instrument holds promise for addressing the unique post-abortion mental health and relational concerns of women.

The second article, by professor Hamza Abed Al-Karim Hammad, Ph.D. elucidates the position of Muslim jurisprudence on Three-Parent In Vitro Fertilization (IVF) while linking it to the position of Arab laws, using the Emirati Law as a model. Three parent IVF takes place by removing the nuclear deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) from the ovum of the mother (wife), inserting that nuclear DNA in a healthy enucleated ovum given by a female donor, and then fertilizing the ovum with sperm from the father (husband) by traditional methods in the laboratory. The author concludes that Islamic Law is opposed to this practice and that Emirati Law does not permit it.

Attorneys Clarke D. Forsythe and Bradley N. Kehr, in the third article, evaluate the need for abortion clinic regulations that address substandard conditions in such clinics and the inherent risks of abortion procedures. In the wake of Gonzäles v. Carhart, additional clinic regulations were needed to protect maternal health. If clinic regulations were going to meet that standard, the short- and long-term risks of abortion needed to be better understood. While preventing "future Gosnells" is a worthy goal, the aim should be effective protection for women's physical and psychological health, not merely the bargain-basement goal of stopping the worst practitioners. The main obstacle to effective health and safety regulations is the Supreme Court's abortion doctrine, which was misguided in its inception and has been contradictory in its application. As this article shows, clinic regulations are fully justified by the substandard conditions in abortion clinics and by the inherent risks inherent in abortion procedures.

In the Opinion section, a new section appearing for the first time in this edition, Patrick J. Marmion, M.D., discusses a Catholic hospital that has decreased the prevalence of disabilities in its Neonatal Intensive Care Unit [NICU] survivors by adopting guidelines that encourage parents to allow their premature baby to die. …

Search by... Author
Show... All Results Primary Sources Peer-reviewed

Oops!

An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.