The Restrictions for ARTs Applicants in the Light of Human Rights Principle
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background and Aim : Having one's own child is one of the strong desires in human being especially in the married persons whom some times and by some reasons are not capable to achieve. Using ARTs is the one of their choices to have a baby while there are some barriers and restrictions for the ARTs applicants, both married and singles, to access which may evaluate in different ways, especially in the light of some basic principles of human rights, including the principles of freedom and non-discrimination and along with, because of the vital importance of respect to child’s rights, the principle of the best interest of a child also is a good criteria for this evaluation. Materials and Methods : In the present study, keywords of persons with disabilities, the best interest of the child, principle of freedom and non-discrimination in databases PubMed, Magiran, SID, ISC and Google Scholar were searched and relevant literatures were searched and analyzed. Ethical Considerations : In this study, honesty in the literature and citation analysis and reporting were considered. Findings : This paper examines the limitations and prohibitions imposed for access to these technologies based on human rights principles. While the respect to freedom and equality of people demand to minimize this restrictions, the best interest of a child principle should be the paramount consideration. In the other words, it is necessary to create balance between the rights of applicants and the rights of future child with a focus on the best interests of the child and to the main purpose of the application of these techniques for humans, with an approach, preventing dehumanization of the technologies. Accordingly, they recommend adoption of legislation and regulations, as well as providing specialized counseling services to the applicants and help them during the decision-making by explaining all existing concerns regarding their child's rights in the future and create a balance between their rights and the future child's. Conclusion : Access to infertility treatment technologies for infertile couples has always creates concerns for service providers about the balance between the rights of parents and future child and policy makers at the macro level. Adoption of laws and regulations, as well as providing specialized counseling services to the applicants and help them during the decision-making by explaining at all existing concerns regarding their children's rights in the future could play an important role in creating a balance between their rights and future child's. Citation: Ghadiri M. The Restrictions for ARTs Applicants in the Light of Human Rights Principle. Bioeth Health Law J. 2017; 1(2):33-42.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,005 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».