Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28245820›Full record

ArticleBMC medical ethics2017

Unconventional combinations of prospective parents: ethical challenges faced by IVF providers.

Robert Klitzman

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical ethics, 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
4.2field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Assisted reproductive technology: Short- and long-term outcomes.Developmental medicine and child neurology · 2023
    Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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.

Robert KlitzmanColumbia University, 1051 Riverside Drive #15, New York, NY, 10032, USA. rlk2@columbia.edu.
Columbia University · US

Funding

CTSA INFRASTRUCTURE FOR PEDIATRIC RESEARCHUL1RR024156 · NCRR · COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES · PI GINSBERG, HENRY N · 2006 to 2011
$53.0M
NCRR NIH HHS UL1 RR024156
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundProfessional guidelines have addressed ethical dilemmas posed by a few types of nontraditional procreative arrangements (e.g., gamete donations between family members), but many questions arise regarding how providers view and make decisions about these and other such arrangements.

methodsThirty-seven ART providers and 10 patients were interviewed in-depth for approximately 1 h each. Interviews were systematically analyzed.

resultsProviders faced a range of challenges and ethical dilemmas concerning both the content and the process of decisions about requests for unconventional interfamilial and other reproductive combinations. Providers vary in how they respond - what they decide, who exactly decides (e.g., an ethics committee or not), and how - often undergoing complex decision-making processes. These combinations can involve creating or raising the child, and can shift over time - from initial ART treatment through to the child's birth. Patients' requests can vary from fully established to mere possibilities. Arrangements may also be unstable, fluid, or unexpected, posing challenges. Difficulties emerge concerning not only familial but social, combinations (e.g., between friends). These arrangements can involve blurry and confusing roles, questions about the welfare of the unborn child, and unanticipated and unfamiliar questions about how to weigh competing moral and scientific concerns - e.g., the autonomy of the individuals involved, and the potential risks and benefits. Clinicians may feel that these requests do not "smell right"; and at first respond with feelings of "yuck," and only later, carefully and explicitly consider the ethical principles involved. Proposed arrangements may, for instance, initially be felt to involve consanguineous individuals, but not in fact do so. Obtaining and verifying full and appropriate informed consent can be difficult, given implicit familial and/or cultural expectations and senses of duty. Social attitudes are changing, yet patients' views of these issues may also vary, based on their cultural backgrounds.

conclusionsThese data, the first to examine how clinicians make decisions about unconventional reproductive arrangements, highlight several critical ethical questions and ambiguities, and variations in clinicians' responses. While several professional guidelines exist, the current data highlight additional challenges, and have vital implications for improving future guidelines, practice, education and research.

trial registrationNot applicable.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelBioethical IssuesDirected Tissue DonationFamilyGestational CarriersChildDecision MakingFamily RelationsFemaleFertilization in VitroHealth PersonnelHumansInformed ConsentMaleMoralsParentsDecision makingDiscriminationEthicsFamiliesFertilization, in vitroGamete donationInfertilityPolicyReproduction

Identifiers

PMID28245820
PMCPMC5331695
OpenAlexW2593040754

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.