ArticleBMC medical ethics2026
Ethical analysis of the public's perception towards human fetal and embryological collections.
Article in BMC medical ethics, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLack of informed consent is the main ethical challenge in human fetal and embryological collections as it violates autonomy, disregards cultural sensitivities, and reflects historical injustices. It is essential that where future frameworks are established, they are codesigned with relevant communities.
methodsA survey was used to assess the perceptions of the public toward human fetal and embryological collections, with a focus on informed consent. The study analyzed the results through the lens of macro, meso, and micro ethics, with the consideration of chrono and exo ethics.
resultsResearchers collected 313 responses. More than half of the participants (56.5%; n = 177) perceived that there would be value in establishing new human fetal and embryological collections. Women without a history of pregnancy, and regular blood donors (p < 0.005) indicated a preference for obtaining fetal and embryological whole remains, with informed consent (38.4%; n = 76/198). In terms of who institutions should accept donations from, 46.3% (n = 145) of the participants expressed that donations should be accepted from both parental sources.
conclusionThe results demonstrate discomfort towards collections without informed consent, which should be considered at the chrono, macro, meso, and micro ethical levels.
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.