Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36518709›Full record

ArticleThe Linacre quarterly2022

Injustices Implied in the Assisted Reproductive Technologies Market.

Carlo Calleja

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Linacre quarterly, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

1 author.

Carlo CallejaDepartment of Moral Theology, Faculty of Theology, University of Malta, Msida, Malta.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4224-1705

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This article critiques the current theological basis that deems assisted reproductive technologies (ART) as immoral, namely that it dissociates the unitive act from procreation, and that it violates the dignity of the embryo. It is argued that notwithstanding the validity of these moral truths, these issues are of little relevance to couples facing childlessness. Three alternative views are then presented, all based on the injustices related to the ART market: (a) injustices that directly affect the couple and their offspring, (b) unfairness related to the commercial aspect of ART markets, and (c) the overall effects that impinge on society at large. Therefore, instead of burdening childless couples wanting to have children of their own with the culpability of sin for resorting to ART, one must rather make them aware that they are prey to the ART market while calling for better regulation of this system in order to mitigate these injustices. The article ends with some recommendations on how to address these injustices.

Indexed as

artificial reproductive technologies, feminist ethicsinfertilityin vitro fertilizationsocial justice

Identifiers

PMID36518709
PMCPMC9743035

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.