Evidence map›Paper›PMID 14662809›Full record

ReviewJournal of medical ethics2003

The physician as an accessory in the parental project of HIV positive people.

Guido Pennings

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of medical ethics, 2003. 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
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 31% of its field
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, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

Guido PenningsDepartment of Philosophy, Free University Brussels, Pleinlaan 2, room 5C442, B-1050 Brussels, Belgium. gpenning@vub.ac.be
Vrije Universiteit Brussel · BE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The question of the moral acceptability of infertility treatment to HIV positive persons raises a number of interesting ethical points regarding the responsibility of the infertility specialist for the outcome of his or her actions. The analysis of the physician's responsibility is conducted within the framework of accomplice liability. The physician is a collaborator in the parental project of the principals--that is, the intentional parents. Both causal contribution and intention are considered as elements of complicity. It is concluded that a two per cent risk of vertical transmission when the woman is HIV positive is insufficient to blame the infertility specialist who helps her to conceive. Helping an infertile HIV positive infertile couple to have a child does not constitute reckless behaviour. When the couple is fertile, infertility treatment is directed at risk reduction and falls under the physician's obligation to act in the best interests of his patients.

Indexed as

Physician's RoleAttitudeFemaleHIV SeropositivityHumansInfectious Disease Transmission, VerticalInfertilityIntentionMaleParentsPhysician-Patient RelationsReproductive Techniques, AssistedRisk FactorsSocial ResponsibilityGenetics and ReproductionHealth Care and Public Health

Identifiers

PMID14662809
PMCPMC1733801
OpenAlexW2011377261

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.