ArticleJournal of medical ethics2005
Sex selection and regulated hatred.
Article in Journal of medical ethics, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 38 citations in OpenAlex.
- Should the scope of NIPT be limited by a 'threshold of seriousness'?European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2025Article
- A Feminist Critique of Justifications for Sex Selection.Journal of bioethical inquiry · 2017Article
- The ethics of nonmedical sex selection.Health care analysis : HCA : journal of health philosophy and policy · 2010Article
- Sex selection: some ethical and policy considerations.Health care analysis : HCA : journal of health philosophy and policy · 2007Review
- What choices should we be able to make about designer babies? A Citizens' Jury of young people in South Wales.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2006Article
- Reproductive liberty and elitist contempt: reply to John Harris.Journal of medical ethics · 2005Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This paper argues that the HFEA's recent report on sex selection abdicates its responsibility to give its own authentic advice on the matters within its remit, that it accepts arguments and conclusions that are implausible on the face of it and where they depend on empirical claims, produces no empirical evidence whatsoever, but relies on reckless speculation as to what the "facts" are likely to be. Finally, having committed itself to what I call the "democratic presumption", that human freedom will not be constrained unless very good and powerful reasons can be produced to justify such infringement of liberty, the HFEA simply reformulates the democratic presumption as saying the opposite--namely that freedom may only be exercised if powerful justifications are produced for any exercise of liberty.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.