Female and male physicians' attitudes toward prenatal diagnosis: A Pan-Canadian survey
Despite widespread use over the past 20 years, prenatal diagnosis (PND) remains a controversial technique because of the moral and organizational dilemmas that it raises in many countries. In order to assess attitudes to PND within the Canadian medical profession, a survey was carried out involving over 3000 physicians offering PND (general practitioners, obstetricians, pediatricians, and radiologists). Several scales were developed to measure (1) physicians' willingness to broaden access to PND, (2) acceptability of abortion when a fetal anomaly is diagnosed, and (3) physicians' directiveness in regard to abortion. This article discusses results concerning the attitudes and opinions of male and female physicians toward prenatal diagnosis, which differed on the three scales. Female physicians are more liberal than their male colleagues with regard to access to amniocentesis and selective abortion and have a less directive relationship with their patients. These tendencies are similar to those observed in prior studies. They are particularly marked for general practitioners and radiologists. Various explanatory hypotheses are examined.
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Volume (Year): 44 (1997)
Issue (Month): 3 (February)
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description|
|Order Information:|| Postal: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/supportfaq.cws_home/regional|
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:44:y:1997:i:3:p:381-392. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu)
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.