The Restrictions for ARTs Applicants in the Light of Human Rights Principle
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.010 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.002 |
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".