Contemporary ethical issues in third party assisted conception
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Introduction: The last quarter century has witnessed remarkable changes in third party assisted conception practices. The historical domination of donor \ninsemination (DI) and ‘do it yourself’ surrogacy – both largely clandestine \npractices - has been replaced by a considerably more varied range of options \ninvolving donor sperm, eggs, and embryos and surrogacy that are available \nto much wider range of involuntary childless people including single men \nand women, same sex couples, post-menopausal women, widows using their \ndead husband’s sperm and parents of deceased persons wishing to conceive \ntheir grand-children. Furthermore, such practices have become increasingly \nvisible. Increased visibility is epitomised by the establishment of formal registers \nof third party procedures in a number of jurisdictions; informal registers \nestablished by service users and operating globally via the internet; legislation \nenabling people conceived following a third party procedure to have information \nabout their donor; and the vocalisation of the interests of people conceived \nas a result of a third party procedure (primarily DI). Both the \nexpansion of services and their increasing visibility have exposed a number \nof ethical concerns and important questions over how to regulate such an \narea in a morally pluralistic and globalised world. \nMaterials and Methods: The presentation is based on a review of policy documentation, \nlegislation, research studies, conference proceedings and media \naccounts of third party assisted conception services in a variety of countries \n(Europe, USA, Australia and Canada) over the last 20 years. The development \nof mechanisms of regulation in this area will be charted to provide an overview \nof current policy and legislation. The aim of this paper is to examine the challenges \nof regulating such an area in the age of reproductive tourism, moral pluralism \nand increasing globalisation. \nResults: The significant ethical issues concerning third party assisted conception \nwill be reviewed: different forms of third party assisted conception; \nthe commercialisation of gamete procurement; the range of people who may \nuse third party procedures; the interests of different family members in families \nbuilt as the result of a third party procedure; and the interests of donors and surrogates. \nSubsequently, the international legal response to these ethical debates \nwill be discussed The presentation will focus on the problems caused by the \nlack of a cohesive regulatory response to these dilemmas by international legislations. \nThese include “reproductive tourism”, that enables people to circumvent \ntheir own country’s ethical codes by travelling to receive treatment, \nuncertainty over acceptable limits to the use of such procedures and welfare \nof the child considerations. \nConclusions: The presentation will consider how bioethical principles can be \napplied to practices in third party assisted conception in the context of moral \npluralism and globalisation. It will conclude by considering the feasibility of \ndeveloping and implementing an internationally agreed code of ethics for \nhealth care professionals in this area.
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 machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,046 | 0,056 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,008 | 0,052 |
| Communication savante | 0,013 | 0,007 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,009 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,026 | 0,028 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,008 | 0,001 |
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 source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), 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 ».