ArticleJournal of bioethical inquiry2026
Discrimination, Age, and Women's Access to Assisted Reproduction.
Article in Journal of bioethical inquiry, 2026. 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This paper investigates whether the age restriction used in several countries to regulate women's access to assisted reproduction constitutes wrongful discrimination. The focus is on how age restrictions, whether in the law or in fertility practices, differ between men and women and between younger and older women. It will be argued that these laws and practices wrongly discriminate against women who, because of their age and sex, do not have access to assisted reproduction. Four reasons for why this kind of discrimination is morally wrong are then presented. In the main part of the paper, three arguments in favour of the view that this kind of discriminatory/differential treatment is morally acceptable will be critically discussed. The arguments are based on the following moral factors: paternalistic reasons to protect women's well-being; protecting the interests of the child; and moral concerns about optimizing the use of scarce resources within public healthcare. The paper concludes that all these three arguments are morally flawed and ultimately that there should be no age limits for women's access to assisted reproduction because such rules are both examples of morally problematic age and sex discrimination.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42635947What 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.