ArticleJournal of bioethical inquiry2018
Narrative Identity in Third Party Reproduction: Normative Aspects and Ethical Challenges.
Article in Journal of bioethical inquiry, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Information and misinformation on assisted human reproduction techniques in Europe: a normative analysis of the information provided on the websites of medically assisted reproduction clinics.BMC medical ethics · 2026Article
- 20 Years Since the Enactment of Italian Law No. 40/2004 on Medically Assisted Procreation: How It Has Changed and How It Could Change.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025Review
- The Right to Freeze Oocyte for Women in Iranian Fertility Centers: A Qualitative Study.Medical journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran · 2025Article
- Mapping Ethical, Legal, and Social Implications (ELSI) of gamete donation.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2024Review
- Circulating miRNAs as a Tool for Early Diagnosis of Endometrial Cancer-Implications for the Fertility-Sparing Process: Clinical, Biological, and Legal Aspects.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Review
- COVID-19 and female fertility: the flaws of Italian Law 40/2004 on assisted procreation in pandemic times.Acta bio-medica : Atenei Parmensis · 2022Article
- Shifting to a model of donor conception that entails a communication agreement among the parents, donor, and offspring.BMC medical ethics · 2022Review
- The Power of Knowledge, Responses to Change, and the Gymnastics of Causation.Journal of bioethical inquiry · 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
In the last few decades, assisted reproduction has introduced new challenges to the way people conceive and build their families. While the numbers of donor-conceived (DC) individuals have increased worldwide, there are still many controversies concerning access to donor information. Is there a fundamental moral right to know one's genetic background? What does identity in DC families mean? Is there any relationship between identity formation and disclosure of genetic origins? These questions are addressed by analysing core regulatory discourse (ethical recommendations and codes of practice). This analysis shows that the notion of narrative identity is suitable for defining and answering these questions. This review analyses the meaning of resemblance in DC families and the way donors are selected following affinity-ties and discusses disclosure strategies and agreements. As a preliminary conclusion, it could be said that, in the field of third-party reproduction, knowing about the donor conception significantly contributes towards the development of a narrative identity and also serves as a moral basis for the child's right to know.
Indexed as
Identifiers
29234993What 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.