Home The IAPM New York 2024 declaration on professional responsibility and abortion
Article Publicly Available

The IAPM New York 2024 declaration on professional responsibility and abortion

  • Frank A. Chervenak , Milan Stajonevic , Amos Grünebaum EMAIL logo and for the International Academy of Perinatal Medicine (IAPM)
Published/Copyright: July 22, 2024

Abstract

The International Academy of Perinatal Medicine (IAPM) firmly supports abortion as a fundamental reproductive right, as declared at their annual meeting on June 28, 2024, in New York City. This stance, grounded in professional responsibility, respects both autonomy and beneficence-based obligations to pregnant patients and fetal patients. The IAPM asserts that access to safe, legal abortion services is essential for gender equality, public health, and social justice. Their declaration aligns with international human rights standards, advocating for abortion legalization up to fetal viability and beyond in cases of maternal health risks or severe fetal anomalies. This comprehensive approach underscores the critical role of healthcare professionals in providing compassionate reproductive healthcare, aiming to reduce maternal mortality and improve public health outcomes globally.

Introduction

The International Academy of Perinatal Medicine (IAPM) has taken a significant and definitive stance on the topic of professional responsibility and abortion, declaring it a fundamental reproductive right. This declaration was unanimously approved at the IAPMs annual meeting on June 28, 2024 in New York City (Table 1). Advocating for access to safe and legal abortion services is based on the professional responsibility model, which respects autonomy and beneficence-based obligations to the pregnant patient and beneficence-based obligations to the fetal patient.

Table 1:

The IAPM New York 2024 declaration on professional responsibility and abortion.

“The IAPM asserts that the right to abortion is integral to the autonomy of individuals, enabling them to make critical decisions about their own bodies. This declaration is rooted in the belief that access to safe and legal abortion services is vital for achieving gender equality and advancing public health and social justice. The IAPM’s stance is that abortion should be legalized up to the point of fetal viability, allowing individuals to exercise their rights without undue restrictions. Furthermore, the organization supports the legality of abortion beyond viability in cases where it is necessary to protect the health or life of the woman or in instances of serious fetal anomalies. This position is in line with the professional responsibility model and international human rights standards, emphasizing reproductive freedom as a critical component of personal liberty and bodily autonomy.”

Legal foundation of abortion

The IAPM’s declaration aligns with international human rights frameworks that advocate for reproductive rights as fundamental human rights. The World Health Organization (WHO) and other international bodies have long recognized that access to safe and legal abortion is crucial for safeguarding women’s health and rights [1]. The legal and ethical foundation of the IAPM’s stance is built on the premise that denying access to abortion services infringes upon an individual’s right to autonomy and self-determination.

Public health implications

The public health implications of restricted access to abortion services are profound. Legal restrictions on abortion do not reduce the incidence of abortion; rather, they drive women to seek unsafe procedures, often with devastating consequences. Unsafe abortions have been shown to be a leading cause of maternal mortality and morbidity globally [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. The IAPM’s support for the legalization of abortion is a call to prioritize women’s health and well-being. Ensuring access to safe and legal abortion services can significantly reduce the rates of maternal mortality and improve overall public health outcomes [2356].

Fetal viability and beyond

Neonatal viability involves the development of critical fetal systems, particularly the lungs, necessary for independent breathing post-birth. Viability is a complex assessment based on gestational age, fetal weight, and available medical interventions. Viability is generally defined as the point where a fetus can survive outside the womb, usually around 22–24 weeks gestation, though different regions may have different abilities to support the neonate [8, 9]. The IAPM supports the legalization of abortion up to viability and acknowledges that post-viability abortions may be necessary in cases of maternal health risks or severe fetal anomalies, emphasizing a compassionate, context-sensitive approach to reproductive healthcare.

Legal context of abortions

Since the overturning of Roe vs. Wade in 2022 [10], many US states have enacted laws significantly restricting abortion rights. These new regulations vary widely, creating a complex legal landscape [11, 12]. In some states, access to abortion has been severely limited by strict gestational limits, mandatory waiting periods, and requirements for multiple in-person visits. Other states have banned specific procedures or criminalized abortion services. This patchwork of laws has increasingly constrained access to abortion, making it highly dependent on geographic location and highlighting the ongoing debate over reproductive rights in the United States.

Globally, abortion laws typically limit post-viability abortions, defined as after 22–24 weeks to cases where the mother’s health or life is at risk or in instances of severe fetal malformations [12, 13]. This approach is seen in most European nations and Australia, balancing the rights of the pregnant individual with fetal viability. In contrast, the legal landscape in the US and Canada varies, with some US states (such as New York, California, Colorado, New Mexico) allowing post-viability abortions without restrictions. These US states represent a divergence from the global norm and professional medical ethics. By allowing post-viability abortions without a specific indication, a political vulnerability is created.

Conclusions

The International Academy of Perinatal Medicine.s New York Declaration on Professional Responsibility and Abortion underscores the importance of reproductive freedom [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22]. By advocating for the legalization of abortion up to fetal viability and beyond in specific circumstances, the IAPM emphasizes the need to protect individual health and rights and to respect beneficence and autonomy-based obligations to the pregnant patient and beneficence-based obligations to the fetal patient. This stance aligns with professional ethics and international human rights standards, highlighting the interconnectedness of gender equality, public health, and social justice. It reaffirms the crucial role of healthcare professionals in ensuring access to safe, legal abortion services, thereby promoting comprehensive and compassionate reproductive healthcare globally.


Corresponding author: Amos Grünebaum, MD, Northwell, New Hyde Park, NY, USA; and Zucker School of Medicine, Northwell, 2000 Marcus Ave. Suite 300, New Hyde Park, 11042-1069, NY, USA, E-mail:

Acknowledgments

Chat GPT-4 was used to help with the design and content of this study.

  1. Research ethics: Followed.

  2. Informed consent: Not applicable.

  3. Author contributions: All authors have accepted responsibility for the entire content of this manuscript and approved its submission.

  4. Competing interests: The authors state no conflict of interest.

  5. Research funding: None declared.

  6. Data availability: Not applicable.

References

1. World Health Organization. Safe abortion: technical and policy guidance for health systems, 2nd ed. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2012.Search in Google Scholar

2. Grimes, DA, Benson, J, Singh, S, Romero, M, Ganatra, B, Okonofua, FE, et al.. Unsafe abortion: the preventable pandemic. Lancet 2006;368:1908–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(06)69481-6.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

3. Berer, M. National laws and unsafe abortion: the parameters of change. Reprod Health Matters 2004;12:1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0968-8080(04)24024-1.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

4. Sedgh, G, Singh, S, Shah, IH, Åhman, E, Henshaw, SK, Bankole, A. Induced abortion: incidence and trends worldwide from 1995 to 2008. Lancet 2012;379:625–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(11)61786-8.Search in Google Scholar

5. Haddad, LB, Nour, NM. Unsafe abortion: unnecessary maternal mortality. Rev Obstet Gynecol 2009;2:122–6.Search in Google Scholar

6. Harris, LH, Grossman, D. Complications of unsafe and self-managed abortion. N Engl J Med 2020;382:1029–40. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmra1908412.Search in Google Scholar

7. International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics. FIGO’s updated ethical guidelines on abortion. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2018;140:3–4.Search in Google Scholar

8. Grunebaum, A, Chervenak, FA. The importance of professional responsibility and fetal viability in the management of abortion. J Perinat Med 2022;50:155–61.Search in Google Scholar

9. Chervenak, FA, Moreno, JD, McLeod-Sordjan, R, Bornstein, E, Katz, A, Pollet, SL, et al.. Addressing challenges related to the professional practice of abortion post-Roe. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2024;230:532–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2023.10.026.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

10. Roe Wade, V. 410 U.S. 1973;113. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/410/113/ [Accessed 1 July 2024].Search in Google Scholar

11. Interactive map: US abortion policies and access after roe. https://states.guttmacher.org/policies/ [Accessed July 1 2024].Search in Google Scholar

12. Center for Reproductive Rights. The world’s abortion laws. https://reproductiverights.org/worldabortionlaws [Accessed 1 July 2024].Search in Google Scholar

13. Abortion law. Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_law [Accessed July 1 2024].Search in Google Scholar

14. Chervenak, FA, Grunebaum, A, McCullough, LB. Ethical dimensions of obstetric practice: using the professional responsibility model to guide decision making. J Perinat Med 2010;38:107–13.Search in Google Scholar

15. Chervenak, FA, McCullough, LB, Grunebaum, A. The professional responsibility model of perinatal ethics. J Perinat Med 2013;41:295–301. https://doi.org/10.1515/JPM.2012.043.Search in Google Scholar

16. Chervenak, FA, Grunebaum, A, McCullough, LB. Professional ethics in obstetrics and gynecology: the professional responsibility model. J Perinat Med 2013;41:349–54. https://doi.org/10.1515/JPM.2012.045.Search in Google Scholar

17. Chervenak, FA, McCullough, LB, Grunebaum, A. The professional responsibility model and maternal-fetal medicine. J Perinat Med 2018;46:203–9. https://doi.org/10.1515/JPM.2017.034.Search in Google Scholar

18. Chervenak, FA, McCullough, LB, Grunebaum, A. Professionalism and ethics in obstetrics and gynecology: challenges and opportunities. J Perinat Med 2012;40:587–92.Search in Google Scholar

19. Grunebaum, A, McCullough, LB, Arabin, B, Chervenak, FA. The professional responsibility model: clinical practice of obstetrics and gynecology. J Perinat Med 2019;47:5–11. https://doi.org/10.1515/JPM.2018.022.Search in Google Scholar

20. Chervenak, FA, McCullough, LB, Grunebaum, A. Ethical management of pregnancies complicated by severe fetal anomalies. J Perinat Med 2016;44:9–16.Search in Google Scholar

21. McCullough, LB, Chervenak, FA. Ethical dimensions of obstetric practice: using the professional responsibility model to guide decision making. Obstet Gynecol Clin N Am 2010;37:251–61.Search in Google Scholar

22. McCullough, LB, Chervenak, FA. The fetus as a patient: an essential role for a professional responsibility model of obstetric ethics. Am J Bioeth 2011;11:60–2.Search in Google Scholar

Received: 2024-07-08
Accepted: 2024-07-09
Published Online: 2024-07-22
Published in Print: 2024-09-25

© 2024 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Articles in the same Issue

  1. Frontmatter
  2. Corner of Academy
  3. The IAPM New York 2024 declaration on professional responsibility and abortion
  4. Review
  5. Common foot and ankle disorders in pregnancy: the role of diagnostic ultrasound
  6. Opinion Paper
  7. Reproductive genetic carrier screening in pregnancy: improving health outcomes and expanding access
  8. Original Articles – Obstetrics
  9. “It feels like you have to choose one or the other”: a qualitative analysis of obstetrician focus groups on periviability counseling
  10. Expectant management vs. cerclage in cases with prolapsed or visible membranes in the second trimester: is 24 weeks gestation threshold critical?
  11. Prevention of preterm birth in twin-to-twin transfusion syndrome: a systematic review and network meta-analysis
  12. Accidental uterine extensions in cesarean deliveries – outcome of subsequent pregnancy
  13. Effect of acidic vaginal pH on the efficacy of dinoprostone (PGE2) vaginal tablet for labor induction in full term pregnant women: a randomized controlled trial
  14. Oligohydramnios at term in the high-risk population – how severe is severe?
  15. Original Articles – Fetus
  16. Assessment of the fetal thymic-thoracic ratio in pregnant women with intrahepatic cholestasis: a prospective case-control study
  17. Congenital diaphragmatic hernia treated via fetal endoscopic tracheal occlusion improves outcome in a middle-income country
  18. Fetal bradyarrhythmias: classification, monitoring and outcomes of 40 cases at a single center
  19. Deep learning based detection and classification of fetal lip in ultrasound images
  20. Original Articles – Neonates
  21. Cytomegalovirus congenital infection: long-term outcomes in a valaciclovir treated population
  22. Does placental VEGF-A protein expression predict early neurological outcome of neonates from FGR complicated pregnancies?
  23. Letters to the Editor
  24. Why do women choose home births: correspondence
  25. Enhancing safety and outcomes in home births: a detailed response to concerns and recommendations
Downloaded on 17.9.2025 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/jpm-2024-0301/html
Scroll to top button