MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Legal regulation of gamete and embryo donation: global and national trends (literature review)

2023· article· en· W4385220461 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Nadezda V. Bashmakova, Irina G. Polyakova, Elvira E. Symaniuk, Alexandra Yu. Khramtsova

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Care of the Russian Federation · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Health and Technologies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDonationSperm donationScopusPolitical scienceGlobeLegislationEmbryo donationBusinessSperm bankEgg donationPublic relationsLawSpermFertilityMedicineGynecologyPopulationEnvironmental healthMEDLINE

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

While the assisted reproductive technologies have been available for several decades, there still exists a great divergence in legal frameworks regulating reproductive donation. 
 The article discusses legal regulations on embryo and gamete (sperm and oocytes) donation in Europe, Americas, Canada and Australia. The search for publications was carried out in all available bibliographic and abstract databases (RSCI, Scopus, Web of Science, CyberLeninka, eLibrary, PubMed) containing reports on the subject of the article. The main search restrictions were the language of publications (English and Russian) and the date of reports (not earlier than 2000). We seek to chart global trends and identify major legislative “gaps”; the latter emerge because each type of reproductive donation causes specific conflicts and calls for specific regulations. There is a visible trend towards open gamete donation across the globe as more and more governments insist on deanonymization of donors. Legislators intend to protect children’s interests and to secure their right to identify their biological parents. Financial remuneration is perceived differently, and regulations diverge across the globe. Many governments permit reimbursements, but do not allow any commercial payoffs. Yet, issues of parenthood and donor-recipient obligations remain quite controversial, which results in divergent legal frameworks. Sperm donation is the least controversial and safest procedure; therefore, it is legal in all countries and is allowed in non-medical setting. On the other hand, informal sperm donation requires targeted legal regulations. Parenthood and anonymity in sperm donation also cause concern and require specific legislation. In some countries, oocyte donation is illegal while in others it is under severe limitations. Currently medical treatment and observation of oocyte donors after ART cycles is not yet legally regulated, which leaves women unprotected from post-donation health issues. Embryo donation hinges on the status of the embryo. Specific definition will determine the consequences including from adoption to research use. There remains a problem of authority over embryo’s future in cases of a spouse’s death or divorce.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.967
Threshold uncertainty score0.229

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.315 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealth Care of the Russian FederationSame topicReproductive Health and TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207