“Think Globally, Act Ethically”: Towards Normative Assessment of Fertility Tourism Regulation in Europe
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent years, cross-border reproductive care has become an industry built on reproductive solutions for infertile individuals and couples as well as same sex couples who leave their "home" country to receive fertility treatments abroad.The diverse national policies and regulations across Europe in the field of assisted reproduction represent politically negotiated rationing criteria in states' health policy decisions.This highly diversified regulatory field opens up a range of transnational ethical issues arising from the adverse consequences and concerns of reproductive services and treatments operating across national boundaries.In this paper, we propose to broaden the scope of the EU's normative power to include the adverse consequences and concerns of cross-border travel to seek reproductive care.Towards this end, greater investment in accountability mechanisms should be applied at the EU level to equity issues arising from fertility tourism and to assessing the normative appropriateness of policy responses at both state and supranational levels across Europe to guide regulation in this policy domain.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.108 | 0.093 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.052 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.022 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.014 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".