Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26699138›Full record

ArticleMonash bioethics review2015

Human embryos and eggs: from long-term storage to biobanking.

Françoise Baylis, Heather Widdows

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Oocyte Biobanks: Old Assumptions and New Challenges.Biotech (Basel (Switzerland)) · 2021
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

2 authors.

Françoise BaylisNovel Tech Ethics, Faculty of Medicine, Dalhousie University, P.O. Box 15000, 1379 Seymour Street, Halifax, NS, B3H 4R2, Canada. francoise.baylis@dal.ca.
Heather WiddowsCentre for the Study of Global Ethics, Department of Philosophy, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK.

Funding

Canadian Institutes of Health Research EOG111389
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Genetic relatedness poses significant challenges to traditional practices of medical ethics as concerns the biobanking of human biological samples. In this paper, we first outline the ethical challenges to informed consent and confidentiality as these apply to human biobanks, irrespective of the type of tissue being stored. We argue that the shared nature of genetic information has clear implications for informed consent, and the identifying nature of biological samples and information has clear implications for promises of confidentiality. Next, with regard to the special case of biobanking human embryos and eggs, we consider issues arising from: first, the type of tissues being stored; second, the use to which these tissues are put; and third, how this plays out given the shared and identifying nature of these tissues. Specifically, we examine the differences between human bodily tissues and human reproductive tissues focusing on the assumed potential of the reproductive tissues and on the possible greater emotional attachment to these tissues because of their real and imagined kinship. For some donors there may be a sense of family connection with embryos and eggs they once thought of as 'children-in-waiting'. Finally, we conclude by considering the implications for ethical practice.

Indexed as

Ethics, MedicalBiological Specimen BanksConfidentialityEmbryo DispositionEnglandFemaleHumansInformed ConsentOocyte DonationReproductive TechniquesBiobankingEggsEmbryosLong-term storageReproductionResearch

Identifiers

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.