State Intervention in Couples’ Reproductive Decisions: Socioethical Reflections Based on the Practice of Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis in France
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Adopting socioethical and anthropological perspectives, this article addresses the impact of state intervention in the reproductive life of couples who consult for preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) in France. Our main objective is to identify and analyze the socioethical problems flowing from French legislation as related to PGD and from its implementation. Methods included review and analysis of the relevant literature, ethnographic research in the three centers accredited to perform PGD, and participant observation (990 hours), with 79 semistructured interviews. Ethical problems identified were: (1) discrimination based on sexual orientation and the requirement for adherence to a traditional model of the couple and the family; (2) inequities in access to PGD; (3) restrictions on couples' autonomy; and (4) breaches of respect for private life. We conclude that the state could improve the ethical conditions in which PGD is practiced by: (1) establishing educational programs in ethics to support members of multidisciplinary centers for prenatal diagnosis; (2) conducting empirical studies on the social acceptability of PGD; and (3) conducting empirical studies on the extent of state intervention in the reproductive life of couples likely to have recourse to reprogenetic services. Keywords: anthropologypreimplantation genetic diagnosisreproductive technologiesreprogeneticsresearch ethicssocial science research The study that underlies this reflection was sponsored by the International Institute of Research in Ethics and Biomedicine (Montreal, Quebec) and the Fonds de la recherche en santé du Québec (FRSQ, Montreal, Quebec). We thank professors Pierre LeCoz (Vice Chair of the Comité Consultatif National d'Ethique and Associate Professor of Philosophy in the Faculty of Medicine at Marseille) and Stéphane Viville (Department of Cell and Developmental Biology, Institute of Genetics and Molecular and Cellular Biology, Faculty Medicine, Université Louis Pasteur, Illkirch, France) for their judicious input. As authors, Chantal Bouffard provided conception and design, acquisition of data, analysis and interpretation of data, and drafting the article. Julie-Kim Godin and Bénédicte Bévière provided critical analysis of legal and bioethical aspects and collaboration in drafting the article. Notes The term "reprogenetics" was used for the first time in 1998 by the molecular biologist Lee M. Silver. It is defined as the combined use of genetics and assisted reproduction. *Multidisciplinary centers for prenatal diagnosis (centres pluridisciplinaires de diagnostic prénatal, or CPDPNs). Time on the waiting list must be added to all of this; as of now, it stands at 2 years. *With the issue in question having emerged for analysis after the data-gathering process, no couples were interviewed on this topic. We plan a future study on the topic 5. Note that the point we wish to make here is not based on the issue of how many homosexuals wish to have children. The issue is rather that of according homosexuals the same rights as all other people, regardless of the proportion who may want to have children or need access to PGD. Tables 2, 3, 4 and 5, represent an overview of concurring findings emerging from the data, the results, and the socio-ethical and anthropological analyses specific to this article. They don't present the full range of results from the study. Note that the point we wish to make here is not based on the issue of how many homosexuals wish to have children. The issue is rather that of according homosexuals the same rights as all other people, regardless of the proportion who may want to have children or need access to PGD.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it