When Good Intentions Lead to Unethical Prescriptions: A Case Against Bed Rest

When Good Intentions Lead to Unethical Prescriptions: A Case Against Bed Rest

I went to graduate school in philosophy after I had practiced Ob/Gyn for 10 years. One of my philosophy professors said that I was too much of an empiricist to ever be a good philosopher. (So naturally, I didn’t ask her to be part of my dissertation committee.)

However, in one sense she was right; I remain an unapologetic empiricist, particularly when it comes to questions of medical ethics. The facts matter, and you need more than philosophical theories to determine the rightness and wrongness of our behaviors and actions in medicine.

It is the empirical facts, much more than ethical theory, that lead to the conclusion I wish to draw in this ethics-based blog: Prescribing bed rest to a pregnant patient with a threatened abortion is always unethical. The empirical facts drive this conclusion far more than any complex ethical reasoning, and we should constantly be on guard for analogous circumstances and for the faulty reasoning that allows us to harm patients with our good intentions.

I’ll begin with the theory, and then examine the facts. I think physicians and ethicists can all readily agree that doctors should never prescribe a treatment with proven harm and no proven benefit. If we wish to couch this in philosophical language (and frankly it feels a bit superfluous here), we can say that a treatment violates the principle of nonmaleficence any time the risks outweigh the benefits or when there is no proven benefit.

The facts are equally clear. No study has ever shown a reduction in miscarriage for women prescribed bed rest after cramping or spotting.1 There never was evidence. Bed rest is a historical medical practice that was adopted to treat everything from myocardial infarction to a sore back, even though no study had validated its utility.2 It would be ethically suspect to prescribe a harmless treatment with no proven benefit, but bed rest is anything but harmless.

The risk of venous thromboembolism alone justifies abandoning bed rest as a treatment for anything unless the evidence for benefit was exceptionally compelling, but the social harms of lost wages, lost jobs, children put in child care, and the mental stress of enforced rest are important but probably unquantifiable. Bed rest is a significant intervention, and as such can only be justified by clear evidence of benefit—evidence that simply doesn’t exist.


Loading comments...
Please Wait 20 seconds or click here to close