ArticleMedicine, health care, and philosophy2015
Preserving children's fertility: two tales about children's right to an open future and the margins of parental obligations.
Article in Medicine, health care, and philosophy, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Making grandchildren. Is there an interest in becoming a grandparent?Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2026Article
- Pubertal Suppression for Transgender Youth: A Right to an Open Future Approach in Support of a Youth-Empowered Legal Framework.Journal of bioethical inquiry · 2025Article
- Keeping it in the family: reproduction beyond genetic parenthood.Journal of medical ethics · 2025Article
- Mapping ethical, legal, and social implications (ELSI) of fertility preservation.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2024Review
- Puberty Suppression for Pediatric Gender Dysphoria and the Child's Right to an Open Future.Archives of sexual behavior · 2024Article
- Ethical, legal, social, and policy issues of ovarian tissue cryopreservation in prepubertal girls: a critical interpretive review.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2024Review
- Expanded Non-invasive Prenatal Testing (NIPT) : Can the Child's Right to an Open Future Help Set the Scope?Journal of bioethical inquiry · 2023Article
- Rethinking the "open future" argument against predictive genetic testing of children.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2019Article
- Caring for individuals with a difference of sex development (DSD): a Consensus Statement.Nature reviews. Endocrinology · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The sources, extent and margins of parental obligations in taking decisions regarding their children's medical care are subjects of ongoing debates. Balancing children's immediate welfare with keeping their future open is a delicate task. In this paper, we briefly present two examples of situations in which parents may be confronted with the choice of whether to authorise or demand non-therapeutic interventions on their children for the purpose of fertility preservation. The first example is that of children facing cancer treatment, and the second of children with Klinefelter syndrome. We argue that, whereas decisions of whether to preserve fertility may be prima facie within the limits of parental discretion, the right to an open future does not straightforwardly put parents under an obligation to take actions that would detect or relieve future infertility in their children-and indeed in some cases taking such actions is problematic.
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.