ReviewMedicine, health care, and philosophy2020
Wrongful genetic connection: neither blood of my blood, nor flesh of my flesh.
Review in Medicine, health care, and philosophy, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Ethical, Legal and Social Issues in Utilizing In Vitro Gametogenesis (IVG) and Stem Cell-Based Embryo Models (SCBEMs) for Human Reproduction in Singapore.Health care analysis : HCA : journal of health philosophy and policy · 2026Article
- Ethical challenges in extending mitochondrial replacement therapy (MRT) for overcoming poor egg quality in older women without mitochondrial diseases.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2025Article
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
Abstract
The use of reproductive techniques and the eventual reproductive negligence from the provider of reproductive services gave rise to situations in which the intended parents are deprived of raising a child genetically connected to them. Courts have been dealing with cases of those for years, but have systemically denied claimants (the prospective parents) compensation, failing to recognise as damage the loss of genetic connection. In 2017, for the first time, the Singapore High Court provided compensation for that damage, labelled "loss of genetic affinity" (ACB v Thomson Medical Pte Ltd and Others [2017] SGCA 20). This paper will argue that the damage in question is the loss of genetic connection (wrongful genetic connection) and results from a violation of reproductive rights (and eventually also the right to found a family) because a key element of reproductive rights is to have children with whom we keep a genetic bond and raise them. The paper will explain why the arguments classically argued against such compensation are unfounded and it will argue for a compensation covering both patrimonial and non-patrimonial damages.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31586292What 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.