Objectives To examine health care professionals' views of their role and responsibilities in providing preconception care and identify barriers that affect the delivery and uptake of preconception care. Methods Twenty health care professionals who provide preconception care on a regular basis were interviewed using semistructured interviews. Results We interviewed twelve community midwives, three General Practitioners, three obstetricians, one cardiologist specialized in congenital heart diseases and one gastroenterologist.We identified four barriers affecting the uptake and delivery of preconception care (PCC): (1) lack of a comprehensive preconception care program; (2) limited awareness of most future parents about the benefits of preconception care, hesitance of GP's about the necessity and effectiveness of PCC; (3) poor coordination and organization of preconception care; (4) conflicting views of health care professionals on pregnancy, reproductive autonomy of patients and professional responsibility. Conclusion We have identified four barriers in the uptake and delivery of preconception care. Our findings support the timely implementation of a comprehensive program of PCC (already advocated by the Health Council of the Netherlands) and increasing awareness and knowledge of PCC from care providers and future parents. We emphasize the need for further research on how organizational barriers lead to suboptimal PCC and how interdisciplinary collaboration and referral can lead to optimally tailored intervention approaches.

No abstract

The current Dutch guideline on care at the edge of perinatal viability advises to consider initiation of active care to infants born from 24 weeks of gestational age on. This, only after extensive counseling of and shared decision-making with the parents of the yet unborn infant. Compared to most other European guidelines on this matter, the Dutch guideline may be thought to stand out for its relatively high age threshold of initiating active care, its gray zone spanning weeks 24 and 25 in which active management is determined by parental discretion, and a slight reluctance to provide active care in case of extreme prematurity. In this article, we explore the Dutch position more thoroughly. First, we briefly look at the previous and current Dutch guidelines. Second, we position them within the Dutch socio-cultural context. We focus on the Dutch prioritization of individual freedom, the abortion law and the perinatal threshold of viability, and a culturally embedded aversion of suffering. Lastly, we explore two possible adaptations of the Dutch guideline; i.e., to only lower the age threshold to consider the initiation of active care, or to change the type of guideline.

No abstract

No abstract

Insights from the Developmental Origins of Health and Disease paradigm and epigenetics are elucidating the biological pathways through which social and environmental signals affect human health. These insights prompt a serious debate about how the structure of society affects health and what the responsibility of society is to counteract health inequalities. Unfortunately, oversimplified interpretations of insights from Developmental Origins of Health and Disease and epigenetics may be (mis)used to focus on the importance of individual responsibility for health rather than the social responsibility for health. In order to advance the debate on responsibility for health, we present an ethical framework to determine the social responsibility to counteract health inequalities. This is particularly important in a time where individual responsibility often justifies a passive response from policymakers.

There is an increasing interest in the possibility of using nudges to promote people's health. Following the advances in developmental biology and epigenetics, it is clear that one's health is not always the result of one's own choices. In the period surrounding pregnancy, maternal choice behaviour has a significant influence on perinatal morbidity and mortality as well as the development of chronic diseases later in life. One's health is thus a matter of one's own as well as one's maternal choices. Therefore, self-regarding and other-regarding nudges should be considered as viable strategies to promote health. In this article, we introduce the concept of other-regarding nudges. We use the harm principle and the principle of beneficence to justify these other-regarding nudges. We conclude by stressing the importance of a fair assessment of expectations towards the nudgee, when determining whether a nudge is aimed at preventing harm or promoting a good.

No abstract