Evidence map›Paper›PMID 11183443›Full record

ArticleHealth care analysis : HCA : journal of health philosophy and policy2000

Legal conceptions: regulating gametes and gamete donation.

K O'Donnell

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Health care analysis : HCA : journal of health philosophy and policy, 2000. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Regulating reprogenetics: strategic sacralisation and semantic massage.Health care analysis : HCA : journal of health philosophy and policy · 2007
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

K O'DonnellUniversity of Hull, Law School, UK. k.j.odonnell@law.hull.ac.uk

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The growing scope of gamete donation and the manipulation of gametes makes it essential to develop a coherent theory of the nature of gametes and the claims which may be made in relation to them. The nature of gametes is ambiguous, they blur the distinctions between persons and property, but the current legal framework which governs gamete donation and manipulation fails to address their status. This leaves unanswered fundamentally important questions about control of processes involving gametes and rights to use or control the gametes themselves and the information which they represent. These are claims which are rooted in the concept of property. A property based analysis highlights the themes of autonomy, personhood and control which lie at the heart of the claims made in relation to gametes and an account based on the notion of property for personhood offers a more coherent justification for recognising claims in gametes and mediating disputes. This perspective exposes the inadequacies and inconsistencies of the legal construction of gametes and the legal regulation of gamete donation. The present legal framework has not sought to develop a coherent construction of gametes, but to constrain the practices of the assisted reproductive technologies (including gamete donation) within a framework which is presented as least damaging to the traditional ideologies of the creation of the family.

Indexed as

Germ CellsBioethicsFemaleFreedomHumansIndividualityMaleOwnershipReproductive TechniquesTissue Donors

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.