ArticleFrontiers in public health2024
Human cloning as reproductive means in future: a qualitative thematic study of underpinning values.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and objective: The possibility of using human cloning to reproduce has been met with unease, shock, and prohibition in many countries, as well as the International Committee for Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technology and the World Health Organization. Exploring the value judgments that underpin these and other responses to reproductive human cloning (RHC) was the objective of this study. Methods: In a qualitative design, this study explored values in their variety underpinning responses to RHC by conducting individual semi-structured in-depth interviews among nine scholars who were purposively sampled for contributing various perspectives. Thematic analysis was used to uncover qualitative contents systematically. Results: Regulation of RHC, the first theme, was valued highly but this should become more sophisticated than plain prohibition and draw on accountable societal engagement that is well-informed by current knowledge and further research, rather than be misled by for example the mistaken assumption that cloned offspring would be exact replicas. The second theme was about potential consequences of RHC for which engagement and regulations should account. It concerns the valuing of the personhood and dignity of offspring from RHC, and averting exploitation and potential unwanted societal consequences. In the third theme, participants valued the individual's freedom to choose and reproduce. Conclusion: Recognizing the needs among people who cannot reproduce in other ways, the agenda for the societal engagement on RHC suggested by this study is extensive and challenging. It includes that potential consequences should be pre-empted, exploitation of RHC be averted, criteria of acceptability and non-acceptability of using RHC be developed, and the limits to the use of RHC be articulated in accordance with technological constraints and the values, resources and preparedness of societies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.