Evidence map›Paper›PMID 11372572›Full record

ArticleHealth care analysis : HCA : journal of health philosophy and policy2001

Surrogate motherhood, rights and duties: a reply to Campbell.

H V McLachlan, J K Swales

Abstract readComment
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Health care analysis : HCA : journal of health philosophy and policy, 2001. 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. Commercial agencies and surrogate motherhood: a transaction cost approach.Health care analysis : HCA : journal of health philosophy and policy · 2005
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

H V McLachlanDivision of Sociology and Social Policy, School of Social Sciences, Glasgow Caledonian University. H.McLachlan@gcal.ac.uk
J K Swales

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In a recent article in Health Care Analysis (Vol. 8, No. 1), Campbell misrepresents our specific arguments about commercial surrogate motherhood (C.S.M.) and our general philosophical and political views by saying or suggesting that we are 'Millsian' liberals and consequentialists. He gives too the false impression that we do not oppose, in principle, slavery and child purchase. Here our position on C.S.M. is re-expressed and elaborated upon in order to eliminate possible confusion. Our general ethical and philosophical framework is also outlined and shown to be other than Campbell says that it is. In particular, a moral philosophy that is based on neither consequentialism nor Kantianism is presented. C.S.M., it is argued, is not child purchase. It is like it in some respects and unlike it in others. It is unlike it in the respects which, relative to the present discussion, matter.

Indexed as

ChildChild WelfareCommerceCriminal LawEthicsFemaleGestational CarriersHumansInfant, NewbornMoralsPhilosophyPregnancyGenetics and ReproductionLegal ApproachPhilosophical Approach

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.