Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32727855›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical ethics2020

Reviewing the womb.

Elizabeth Chloe Romanis, Dunja Begović, Margot R Brazier, Alexandra Katherine Mullock

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical ethics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 50% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Is pregnancy a disease? A normative approach.Journal of medical ethics · 2024
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Maternal-Fetal Surgery: Does Recognising Fetal Patienthood Pose a Threat to Pregnant Women's Autonomy?Health care analysis : HCA : journal of health philosophy and policy · 2021
    Article
  8. 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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Elizabeth Chloe RomanisCentre for Social Ethics and Policy, Department of Law, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK elizabeth.romanis@manchester.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8774-4015
Dunja BegovićCentre for Social Ethics and Policy, Department of Law, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Margot R BrazierCentre for Social Ethics and Policy, Department of Law, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Alexandra Katherine MullockCentre for Social Ethics and Policy, Department of Law, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
University of Manchester · GB

Funding

Wellcome Trust 208245/Z/17/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Throughout most of human history women have been defined by their biological role in reproduction, seen first and foremost as gestators, which has led to the reproductive system being subjected to outside interference. The womb was perceived as dangerous and an object which husbands, doctors and the state had a legitimate interest in controlling. In this article, we consider how notions of conflict surrounding the womb have endured over time. We demonstrate how concerns seemingly generated by the invisibility of reproduction and the inaccessibility of the womb have translated into similar arguments for controlling women, as technology increases the accessibility of the female body and the womb. Developments in reproductive medicine, from in vitro fertilisation (IVF) to surrogacy, have enabled women and men who would otherwise have been childless to become parents. Uterus transplants and 'artificial wombs' could provide additional alternatives to natural gestation. An era of 'womb technology' dawns. Some argue that such technology providing an alternative to 'natural' gestation could be a source of liberation for female persons because reproduction will no longer be something necessarily confined to the female body. 'Womb technology', however, also has the potential to exacerbate the labelling of the female body as a source of danger and an 'imperfect' site of gestation, thus replaying rudimentary and regressive arguments about controlling female behaviour. We argue that pernicious narratives about control, conflict and the womb must be addressed in the face of these technological developments.

Indexed as

embryos and fetusesinterests of woman/fetus/fatherreproductive medicinesocial control of science/technologywomen

Identifiers

PMID32727855
PMCPMC8639904
OpenAlexW3034277201

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.