ArticleMonash bioethics review2015
The limits of evidence: evidence based policy and the removal of gamete donor anonymity in the UK.
Article in Monash bioethics review, 2015. 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.
- Direct to consumer genetic testing and gamete donor conception: ethical challenges.BMC medical ethics · 2026Article
- Warnock and its contested legacy in relation to donor conceived families: the case for regulatory reform.Human fertility (Cambridge, England) · 2025Article
- Mapping Ethical, Legal, and Social Implications (ELSI) of gamete donation.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2024Review
- Good practice recommendations for information provision for those involved in reproductive donationHuman reproduction open · 2022Article
- Absence of laws regarding sperm and oocyte donation in Japan and the impacts on donors, parents, and the people born as a result.Reproductive medicine and biology · 2020Article
- Sperm donor regulation and disclosure intentions: Results from a nationwide multi-centre study in France.Reproductive biomedicine & society online · 2018Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This paper will critically examine the use of evidence in creating policy in the area of reproductive technologies. The use of evidence in health care and policy is not a new phenomenon. However, codified strategies for evidence appraisal in health care technology assessments and attempts to create evidence based policy initiatives suggest that the way evidence is used in practice and policy has changed. This paper will examine this trend by considering what is counted as 'good' evidence, difficulties in translating evidence into policy and practice and how evidence interacts with principles. To illustrate these points the removal of gamete donor anonymity in the UK in 2005 and the debates that preceded this change in the law will be examined. It will be argued that evidence will only ever take us so far and attention should also be paid to the underlying principles that guide policy. The paper will conclude with suggestions for how underlying principles can be more rigorously used in policy formation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
25743050What 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.