ArticleReproductive biomedicine & society online2017
A cross-cultural analysis of posthumous reproduction: The significance of the gender and margins-of-life perspectives.
Article in Reproductive biomedicine & society online, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 26 citations in OpenAlex.
- Biomedical ethical analysis of patients' perspectives on posthumous reproduction in a gynecology and obstetrics clinic.BMC medical ethics · 2025Article
- Postmortem fertilization: New Italian government guidelines affirm the legitimacy of this procedure.European journal of obstetrics & gynecology and reproductive biology: X · 2024Review
- Religious and cultural interpretations of artificial insemination in South-West Nigeria.AJOG global reports · 2023Article
- The emergence of temporality in attitudes towards cryo-fertility: a case study comparing German and Israeli social egg freezing users.History and philosophy of the life sciences · 2022Article
- Posthumous assisted reproduction policies among a cohort of United States' in vitro fertilization clinics.F&S reports · 2020Article
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 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The scholarly discussion of posthumous reproduction (PHR) focuses on informed consent and the welfare of the future child, for the most part overlooking cultural differences between societies. Based on a cross-cultural comparison of legal and regulatory documents, analysis of pivotal cases and study of scholarly and media discussions in Israel and Germany, this paper analyses the relevant ethical and policy issues, and questions how cultural differences shape the practice of PHR. The findings challenge the common classifications of PHR by highlighting the gender perspective and adding brain-dead pregnant women to the debate. Based on this study's findings, four neglected cultural factors affecting social attitudes towards PHR are identified: (i) the relationship between the pregnant woman and her future child; (ii) what constitutes the beginning of life; (iii) what constitutes dying; and (iv) the social agent(s) seeking to have the future child. The paper argues that PHR can be better understood by adding the gender and margins-of-life perspectives, and that future ethical and practical discussions of this issue could benefit from the criteria emerging from this cross-cultural analysis.
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.