Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39031320›Full record

ArticleJournal of assisted reproduction and genetics2024

The ethics of non-partner requests for posthumous assisted reproduction.

Lisa Campo-Engelstein, Anna Dean Pfeiffer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics, 2024. 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

2 authors.

Lisa Campo-EngelsteinDepartment of Bioethics and Health Humanities, Institute for Bioethics & Health Humanities, School of Public and Population Health, University of Texas Medical Branch, 301 University Blvd, Galveston, TX, 77555-1311, USA. licampoe@utmb.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1800-9110
Anna Dean PfeifferJohn Sealy School of Medicine, University of Texas Medical Branch, 301 University Blvd, Galveston, TX, 77555-1311, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

After the death of a loved one, family will occasionally request posthumous assisted reproduction (PAR). Professional medical societies in the US and Europe oppose such requests without written consent except from the surviving partner with whom the deceased presumably shared a joint reproductive project. Here, however, we argue that joint reproductive projects are not limited to two-person romantic partners and therefore ethical policies should not be either. In other words, we argue the criterion of being in a romantic partnership with the decedent is biased and unjustly excludes certain family formations. We begin by describing the professional society guidelines to highlight how they presume a two-person romantic couple is the ideal basis for reproductive projects and families. Then, we discuss examples of alternative parental projects, noting that they are usually grounded in feminist and queer values. Finally, we respond to potential objections about violating the autonomy of the deceased and conflating reproductive and parental projects. In sum, as long as medical societies continue to uphold a policy whereby romantic partners may seek PAR in the absence of written consent, we believe that these societies must also allow for the potential of family formations that do not fit into the dominant paradigm.

Indexed as

Reproductive Techniques, AssistedFemaleHumansMalePosthumous ConceptionSexual PartnersEthicsFamily formationPosthumous assisted reproductionThird-party reproduction

Identifiers

PMID39031320
PMCPMC11405605

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.