Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31418161›Full record

ArticleJournal of bioethical inquiry2019

Subsidizing PGD: The Moral Case for Funding Genetic Selection.

James M Kemper, Christopher Gyngell, Julian Savulescu

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of bioethical inquiry, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. 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

3 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

James M KemperMonash Health, Clayton Road, Clayton, 3168, Australia.
Christopher GyngellUniversity of Melbourne / Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Royal Children's Hospital, Flemington Rd, Parkville, VIC, 3052, Australia.
Julian SavulescuOxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Suite 8, Littlegate House St Ebbes Street, Oxford, OX1 1PT, UK. jsavuelscu@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1691-6403
Monash Health · AURoyal Children's Hospital · AUWellcome Centre for Ethics and Humanities · GB

Funding

Wellcome Trust 203132
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) allows the detection of genetic abnormalities in embryos produced through in vitro fertilization (IVF). Current funding models in Australia provide governmental subsidies for couples undergoing IVF, but do not extend to PGD. There are strong reasons for publicly funding PGD that follow from the moral principles of autonomy, beneficence and justice for both parents and children. We examine the objections to our proposal, specifically concerns regarding designer babies and the harm of disabled individuals, and show why these are substantially outweighed by arguments for subsidizing PGD. We argue that an acceptance of PGD is aligned with present attitudes towards procreative decision making and IVF use, and that it should therefore receive government funding.

Indexed as

Principle-Based EthicsAustraliaBeneficenceDecision MakingFemaleFinancing, GovernmentHealth Care CostsHumansMaleParentsPersonal AutonomyPregnancyPreimplantation DiagnosisSelection, GeneticSocial JusticeAutonomyBeneficenceGovernmental fundingJusticePreimplantation genetic diagnosis

Identifiers

PMID31418161
PMCPMC6831526
OpenAlexW2967859901

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.