CASE STUDY

Ms. A, a woman known to her physician, Dr. S, to be suspicious of the mainstream medical community, had a very strong desire for children. She became pregnant, and visited Dr. S early in her pregnancy. Dr. S was aware that Ms. A was pregnant.

Ms. A made a general inquiry of Dr. S about the risks associated with maternal chickenpox acquired during pregnancy. She indicated no specific concern with potential acquisition of the disease. Dr. S was aware that the CPS (Compendium of Pharmaceutical Specialties) included the virus causing chickenpox as a known, but very small risk factor in pregnancy. He informed Ms. A of the usual known adverse effects of chickenpox: that there was a very small increased risk to the fetus posed by a pregnant mother's exposure to the virus which causes chickenpox. These were the usual adverse effects which Dr. S was in the habit of disclosing to patients. Ms. A subsequently contracted chickenpox during her pregnancy, and subsequently delivered a full term congenitally injured infant.

Ms. A later brought a civil action in negligence against Dr. S, claiming that she had not been fully informed of the risks of acquiring Chickenpox during pregnancy, and, further, that had she been fully informed she would have elected to terminate the pregnancy.

QUESTION

What should have been discussed with Ms. A and then whether Dr. S gave Ms. A sufficient information to enable her consent to continue her pregnancy to be informed? Consider specifically the ethics portion of this case and by incorporating at least two different ethical theories