ArticleJournal of medical ethics2018
'No' to lesbian motherhood using human nuclear genome transfer.
Article in Journal of medical ethics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Patient care practices for LGBTQ+ individuals in clinical genetics: A scoping review.Journal of genetic counseling · 2025Article
- Mitochondrial Replacement Therapy: In Whose Interests?The Journal of law, medicine & ethics : a journal of the American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics · 2022Article
- Getting what you desire: the normative significance of genetic relatedness in parent-child relationships.Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Comment on
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Giulia Cavaliere and César Palacios-González argue that lesbian couples should have access to human nuclear genome transfer (so-called mitochondrial replacement) so that both members of the couple can have a genetic link to the child they intend to parent. Their argument is grounded in an appeal to reproductive freedom. In this Response, I address a number of concerns with their argument. These concerns relate to nomenclature, treating like cases alike, genetic-relatedness and the limits of reproductive rights. On this last point, I insist that we should not mistake 'wants' for 'needs' or 'rights'. I maintain that there is no right to biological parenthood, there is no compelling need for human nuclear genome transfer to satisfy a so-called need for genetically-related children, and we ought not to pander to an acquired desire (ie, want) for genetic filiation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
29802119What 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.