ArticleHealth care analysis : HCA : journal of health philosophy and policy2007
Embryonic stem cell patents and human dignity.
Article in Health care analysis : HCA : journal of health philosophy and policy, 2007. 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.
- Is Dignity Still Necessary in Health Care? From Definition to Recognition of Human Dignity.Journal of religion and health · 2024Article
- Will CRISPR Germline Engineering Close the Door to an Open Future?Science and engineering ethics · 2019Article
- Organs, embryos, and part-human chimeras: further applications of the social account of dignity.Monash bioethics review · 2018Article
- Defining "research" in the US and EU: contrast of Sherley v. Sebelius and Brüstle v. Greenpeace rulings.Stem cell reviews and reports · 2013Article
- Patents on Technologies of Human Tissue and Organ Regeneration from Pluripotent Human Embryonic Stem Cells.Recent patents on regenerative medicine · 2011Article
- Research integrity in China: problems and prospects.Developing world bioethics · 2010Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
This article examines the assertion that human embryonic stem cells patents are immoral because they violate human dignity. After analyzing the concept of human dignity and its role in bioethics debates, this article argues that patents on human embryos or totipotent embryonic stem cells violate human dignity, but that patents on pluripotent or multipotent stem cells do not. Since patents on pluripotent or multipotent stem cells may still threaten human dignity by encouraging people to treat embryos as property, patent agencies should carefully monitor and control these patents to ensure that patents are not inadvertently awarded on embryos or totipotent stem cells.
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.