Literature DB >> 21627812

Assisted reproduction: what factors interfere in the professional's decisions? Are single women an issue?

Suzana Záchia1, Daniela Knauth, José R Goldim, Juliana R Chachamovich, Eduardo Chachamovich, Ana H Paz, Ricardo Felberbaum, PierGiorgio Crosignani, Basil C Tarlatzis, Eduardo P Passos.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: With the development of medical technology, many countries around the world have been implementing ethical guidelines and laws regarding Medically Assisted Reproduction (MAR). A physician's reproductive decisions are not solely based on technical criteria but are also influenced by society values. Therefore, the aim of this study was to analyze the factors prioritized by MAR professionals when deciding on whether to accept to perform assisted reproduction and to show any existing cultural differences.
METHODS: Cross-sectional study involving 224 healthcare professionals working with assisted reproduction in Brazil, Italy, Germany and Greece. Instrument used for data collection: a questionnaire, followed by the description of four special MAR cases (a single woman, a lesbian couple, an HIV discordant couple and gender selection) which included case-specific questions regarding the professionals' decision on whether to perform the requested procedure as well as the following factors: socio-demographic variables, moral and legal values as well as the technical aspects which influence decision-making.
RESULTS: Only the case involving a single woman who wishes to have a child (without the intention of having a partner in the future) demonstrated significant differences. Therefore, the study was driven towards the results of this case specifically. The analyses we performed demonstrated that professionals holding a Master's Degree, those younger in age, female professionals, those having worked for less time in reproduction, those in private clinics and Brazilian health professionals all had a greater tendency to perform the procedure in that case. A multivariate analysis demonstrated that the reasons for the professional's decision to perform the procedure were the woman's right to gestate and the duty of MAR professionals to help her. The professionals who decided not to perform the procedure identified the woman's marital status and the child's right to a father as the reason to withhold treatment.
CONCLUSION: The study indicates differences among countries in the evaluation of the single woman case. It also discloses the undervaluation of bioethics committees and the need for a greater participation of healthcare professionals in debates on assisted reproduction laws.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21627812      PMCID: PMC3125239          DOI: 10.1186/1472-6874-11-21

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  BMC Womens Health        ISSN: 1472-6874            Impact factor:   2.809


  20 in total

1.  II. The cryopreservation of human embryos.

Authors:  F Shenfield; G Pennings; C Sureau; J Cohen; B Tarlatzis
Journal:  Hum Reprod       Date:  2001-05       Impact factor: 6.918

2.  Reproductive health and midwives: does occupational status differentiate their attitudes on assisted reproduction technologies from those of the general population?

Authors:  S Papaharitou; E Nakopoulou; M Moraitou; K Hatzimouratidis; D Hatzichristou
Journal:  Hum Reprod       Date:  2007-04-26       Impact factor: 6.918

3.  Assisted reproductive technologies in developing countries: are we caring yet?

Authors:  Effy Vayena; Herbert B Peterson; David Adamson; Karl-G Nygren
Journal:  Fertil Steril       Date:  2009-03-25       Impact factor: 7.329

4.  Frozen embryos, genetic information and reproductive rights.

Authors:  Sarah Chan; Muireann Quigley
Journal:  Bioethics       Date:  2007-10       Impact factor: 1.898

Review 5.  Review: parent-child relationships and child development in donor insemination families.

Authors:  A Brewaeys
Journal:  Hum Reprod Update       Date:  2001 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 15.610

6.  School-aged children of donor insemination: a study of parents' disclosure patterns.

Authors:  E Lycett; K Daniels; R Curson; S Golombok
Journal:  Hum Reprod       Date:  2005-01-27       Impact factor: 6.918

7.  Disclosure of donor conception in single-mother families: views and concerns.

Authors:  Ruth Landau; Ruth Weissenberg
Journal:  Hum Reprod       Date:  2010-02-03       Impact factor: 6.918

Review 8.  Infertility treatment for HIV-positive women.

Authors:  Augusto Enrico Semprini; Lital Hannah Hollander; Alessandra Vucetich; Carole Gilling-Smith
Journal:  Womens Health (Lond)       Date:  2008-07

9.  Gamete donation: parents' experiences of searching for their child's donor siblings and donor.

Authors:  T Freeman; V Jadva; W Kramer; S Golombok
Journal:  Hum Reprod       Date:  2009-03       Impact factor: 6.918

10.  Gender selection: pressure from patients and industry should not alter our adherence to ethical guidelines.

Authors:  Mark V Sauer
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2004-11       Impact factor: 8.661

View more
  2 in total

1.  Ethical attitudes of German specialists in reproductive medicine and legal regulation of preimplantation sex selection in Germany.

Authors:  Miriam Wilhelm; Edgar Dahl; Henry Alexander; Elmar Brähler; Yve Stöbel-Richter
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-02-20       Impact factor: 3.240

2.  Italian law on medically assisted reproduction: do women's autonomy and health matter?

Authors:  Irene Riezzo; Margherita Neri; Stefania Bello; Cristoforo Pomara; Emanuela Turillazzi
Journal:  BMC Womens Health       Date:  2016-07-23       Impact factor: 2.809

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.