The unnecessary 'more'-compared to ROPA: a reply to Mangione.

IF 3.3 2区 哲学 Q1 ETHICS Journal of Medical Ethics Pub Date : 2024-08-12 DOI:10.1136/jme-2024-110285
Jolie Zhou
{"title":"The unnecessary 'more'-compared to ROPA: a reply to Mangione.","authors":"Jolie Zhou","doi":"10.1136/jme-2024-110285","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In her recent paper, Emanuele Mangione proposes combining maternal spindle transfer (MST) and reciprocal effortless in vitro fertilisation (ReIVF) to enable both females to have genetic and gestational ties with the same child, which can particularly benefit lesbian couples. This response rejects Mangione's proposal for the reason that the additional biological ties created by MST+ReIVF, compared with the reception of oocytes from partner (ROPA), are unnecessary. ROPA is currently the most effective method for redistributing biological ties within lesbian couples, allowing one member to provide the egg and the other to carry the fetus. The additional biological ties created by MST+ReIVF are quantitatively too small to significantly enhance parental bonding or couple relationships, and their potential harms to both prospective parents and children outweigh any minor benefits. Furthermore, like ROPA, MST+ReIVF fails to address deeper feminist concerns. Therefore, I propose a new idea: combining in vitro gametogenesis with ectogenesis, which can offer far more reproductive choices and greater potential to address deeper feminist concerns than MST+ReIVF.</p>","PeriodicalId":16317,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medical Ethics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Medical Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/jme-2024-110285","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In her recent paper, Emanuele Mangione proposes combining maternal spindle transfer (MST) and reciprocal effortless in vitro fertilisation (ReIVF) to enable both females to have genetic and gestational ties with the same child, which can particularly benefit lesbian couples. This response rejects Mangione's proposal for the reason that the additional biological ties created by MST+ReIVF, compared with the reception of oocytes from partner (ROPA), are unnecessary. ROPA is currently the most effective method for redistributing biological ties within lesbian couples, allowing one member to provide the egg and the other to carry the fetus. The additional biological ties created by MST+ReIVF are quantitatively too small to significantly enhance parental bonding or couple relationships, and their potential harms to both prospective parents and children outweigh any minor benefits. Furthermore, like ROPA, MST+ReIVF fails to address deeper feminist concerns. Therefore, I propose a new idea: combining in vitro gametogenesis with ectogenesis, which can offer far more reproductive choices and greater potential to address deeper feminist concerns than MST+ReIVF.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
不必要的 "更多"--与 ROPA 相比:回复 Mangione。
Emanuele Mangione 在其最近的论文中提出,将母体纺锤体移植(MST)与互惠不费力体外受精(ReIVF)相结合,可使女性双方与同一个孩子拥有遗传和妊娠联系,这对女同性恋夫妇尤其有利。本答复反对曼乔内的建议,理由是与接受伴侣的卵细胞(ROPA)相比,MST+ReIVF 所产生的额外的生物学联系是不必要的。目前,ROPA 是重新分配女同性恋夫妇之间生物联系的最有效方法,它允许一方提供卵子,另一方怀上胎儿。MST+ReIVF 所产生的额外生物联系在数量上太小,无法显著增强父母的亲子关系或夫妻关系,其对准父母和子女的潜在伤害超过了任何微小的益处。此外,与《生殖健康法案》一样,MST+ReIVF 也未能解决更深层次的女权主义问题。因此,我提出了一个新的想法:将体外配子与异位生殖结合起来,这样可以提供比 MST+ReIVF 更多的生殖选择,也更有可能解决更深层次的女权主义问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Medical Ethics
Journal of Medical Ethics 医学-医学:伦理
CiteScore
7.80
自引率
9.80%
发文量
164
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Medical Ethics is a leading international journal that reflects the whole field of medical ethics. The journal seeks to promote ethical reflection and conduct in scientific research and medical practice. It features articles on various ethical aspects of health care relevant to health care professionals, members of clinical ethics committees, medical ethics professionals, researchers and bioscientists, policy makers and patients. Subscribers to the Journal of Medical Ethics also receive Medical Humanities journal at no extra cost. JME is the official journal of the Institute of Medical Ethics.
期刊最新文献
Argument for allowing first-in-human cardiac xenotransplantation clinical trials in paediatric patients. Advancing the scholarship of clinical ethics consultation. Autonomy versus exclusion in xenotransplantation trials. Distributive justice, best options and organ markets: a reply to Semrau. The ethics of synthetic DNA.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1