Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28224271›Full record

ArticleJournal of bioethical inquiry2017

The Perfect Womb: Promoting Equality of (Fetal) Opportunity.

Evie Kendal

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of bioethical inquiry, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Sex, Drugs, and a Few Other Things.Journal of bioethical inquiry · 2017
    Article
  8. 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

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Evie KendalSchool of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Alfred Centre Level 5, 99 Commercial Rd, Melbourne, 3000, Australia. evie.kendal@monash.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8414-0427
Monash Alfred Psychiatry Research centre · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This paper aims to address how artificial gestation might affect equality of opportunity for the unborn and any resultant generation of "ectogenetic" babies. It will first explore the current legal obstacles preventing the development of ectogenesis, before looking at the benefits of allowing this technology to control fetal growth and development. This will open up a discussion of the treatment/enhancement divide regarding the use of reproductive technologies, a topic featured in various bioethical debates on the subject. Using current maternity practices in Western society as a comparator, this paper will conclude that neither naturally nor artificially gestated fetuses have interests that can conflict with those of potential parents who might want to use this technology to control fetal development. Such control may include selective implantation of embryos of a desired gender, deliberate choice of genetic traits, or maintenance of an ideal incubation environment to avoid fetal damage. Objections on the basis of disability as well as concerns regarding eugenics will be addressed. The paper will conclude that none of these objections are compelling grounds to prevent the development and use of ectogenesis technologies for the purpose of achieving specific reproductive goals, particularly when compared to current practices in pre-implantation genetic diagnosis and selective abortion on the grounds of undesired traits. As such, when deciding whether to support ectogenesis research, the enduring interests of parents must be the primary consideration, with societal concerns regarding potential misuse the only valid secondary consideration.

Indexed as

Fetal DevelopmentParentsPhenotypeReproductive RightsSocial DiscriminationAbortion, InducedAdultBioethical IssuesChildChildren with DisabilitiesEctogenesisEugenicsFemaleFetusGender IdentityHumansEctogenesisEugenicsReproductive biotechnology

Identifiers

PMID28224271
OpenAlexW2590702014

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.