ArticleReproductive biomedicine & society online2016
Changing direction: the struggle of regulating assisted reproductive technology in Austria.
Article in Reproductive biomedicine & society online, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Mapping ethical, legal, and social implications (ELSI) of preimplantation genetic testing (PGT).Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2024Review
- Late fertility intentions increase over time in Austria, but chances to have a child at later ages remain low.Reproductive biomedicine & society online · 2022Article
- Why are self-medication opportunities limited in Austria? An interview study and comparison with other countries.PloS one · 2021Article
- Introduction.Reproductive biomedicine & society online · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
From 1992 until 2015, Austria had a very restrictive Reproductive Medicine Law (FMedG, 1992) that prohibited a number of treatments such as egg donation, preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD), heterologous sperm donation for IVF/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) as well as general access to assisted reproductive technology for same-sex couples. As one consequence of this rather prohibitive law, Austrian physicians active in the area of assisted reproductive technology co-operated with, or had daughter institutes in, countries with less restrictive legislation such as the Czech Republic and Slovakia, which are only a few hours' drive away. For a long time, liberalisation of the Reproductive Medicine Law was blocked by the fierce and seemingly unresolvable struggle between the restrictive conservative party (ÖVP) and the permissive social democrats' party (SPÖ). In 2014 the impasse, which had lasted for decades, was finally resolved in favour of a more liberal Reproductive Medicine Law that permits egg donation, PGD in some cases and heterologous sperm donation for IVF/ICSI and lesbian couples. Assisted reproductive technology treatments for single women and surrogate motherhood remain prohibited. The new Reproductive Medicine Law was heavily opposed by the Catholic Church, by some conservatives and by disability associations. By applying the concept of political culture, this paper explains why a liberalisation of the Reproductive Medicine Law was blocked for decades, and how the sudden policy change came about.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.