决定有争议胚胎的命运:Natallie Evans 案中的伦理问题。

Anna Smajdor
{"title":"决定有争议胚胎的命运:Natallie Evans 案中的伦理问题。","authors":"Anna Smajdor","doi":"10.1186/1743-1050-4-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>A number of disputes have arisen in recent years over the status of non-transferred embryos cryopreserved during in vitro fertilisation. One such case is that of Natallie Evans who in April 2007 lost her final attempt to prevent the destruction of embryos created with the sperm of her former partner. Ms Evans had been rendered infertile by cancer treatment, and the embryos represented her only chance of having genetically related children.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Arguments over stored embryos often conflate different concepts of parenthood. The effects of 'forcing' genetic parenthood on a man are mistakenly presented as being analogous with forcing women to bear children. Likewise, there is a tendency to assume that genetic parenthood necessarily involves legal, financial and psychological implications. Men (or women) who object to becoming parents should be encouraged to specify which aspects of parenthood they regard as being harmful. While the financial or physical burdens of forced parenthood involve objective harms, the putative psychological harms of enforced genetic parenthood are subjective, and this distinction should be recognised. Popular beliefs about genetic parenthood perpetuate the kinds of subjective concerns expressed by Ms Evans' partner, but the concept of genetic parenthood itself may come under pressure in the face of future technological developments.</p><p><strong>Summary: </strong>Historical legal requirements obliging men to provide for their genetic offspring still pervade in the law. These perceptions are becoming outmoded in context of rapidly-moving reproductive technologies. To avoid disputes greater flexibility is required. The economic and legal components of parenthood should be negotiable in cases where disputes arise, and should not be assumed to flow inexorably from genetic paternity. To reduce the chances of disputes arising, consent protocols for cryopreservation of non-transferred embryos should be refined. Couples should address the possibility of divorce or the breakup of their relationships, and should be made aware that embryos can be destroyed at the behest of either party in these circumstances.</p>","PeriodicalId":87102,"journal":{"name":"Journal of experimental & clinical assisted reproduction","volume":"4 ","pages":"2"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2007-07-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1936431/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Deciding the fate of disputed embryos: ethical issues in the case of Natallie Evans.\",\"authors\":\"Anna Smajdor\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/1743-1050-4-2\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>A number of disputes have arisen in recent years over the status of non-transferred embryos cryopreserved during in vitro fertilisation. One such case is that of Natallie Evans who in April 2007 lost her final attempt to prevent the destruction of embryos created with the sperm of her former partner. Ms Evans had been rendered infertile by cancer treatment, and the embryos represented her only chance of having genetically related children.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Arguments over stored embryos often conflate different concepts of parenthood. The effects of 'forcing' genetic parenthood on a man are mistakenly presented as being analogous with forcing women to bear children. Likewise, there is a tendency to assume that genetic parenthood necessarily involves legal, financial and psychological implications. Men (or women) who object to becoming parents should be encouraged to specify which aspects of parenthood they regard as being harmful. While the financial or physical burdens of forced parenthood involve objective harms, the putative psychological harms of enforced genetic parenthood are subjective, and this distinction should be recognised. Popular beliefs about genetic parenthood perpetuate the kinds of subjective concerns expressed by Ms Evans' partner, but the concept of genetic parenthood itself may come under pressure in the face of future technological developments.</p><p><strong>Summary: </strong>Historical legal requirements obliging men to provide for their genetic offspring still pervade in the law. These perceptions are becoming outmoded in context of rapidly-moving reproductive technologies. To avoid disputes greater flexibility is required. The economic and legal components of parenthood should be negotiable in cases where disputes arise, and should not be assumed to flow inexorably from genetic paternity. To reduce the chances of disputes arising, consent protocols for cryopreservation of non-transferred embryos should be refined. Couples should address the possibility of divorce or the breakup of their relationships, and should be made aware that embryos can be destroyed at the behest of either party in these circumstances.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":87102,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of experimental & clinical assisted reproduction\",\"volume\":\"4 \",\"pages\":\"2\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2007-07-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1936431/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of experimental & clinical assisted reproduction\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/1743-1050-4-2\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of experimental & clinical assisted reproduction","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/1743-1050-4-2","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:近年来,在体外受精过程中冷冻保存的非移植胚胎的地位问题上出现了一些争议。2007 年 4 月,纳塔莉-埃文斯(Natallie Evans)在阻止销毁用其前伴侣的精子制造的胚胎的最后一次尝试中失败。埃文斯女士因癌症治疗而无法生育,这些胚胎是她拥有遗传相关子女的唯一机会:关于储存胚胎的争论往往混淆了父母身份的不同概念。强迫 "男性遗传为人父母的影响被错误地描述为与强迫女性生儿育女相类似。同样,人们还倾向于认为基因父母身份必然涉及法律、经济和心理影响。应鼓励反对为人父母的男性(或女性)具体说明他们认为为人父母的哪些方面是有害的。强迫为人父母所造成的经济或身体负担是客观伤害,而强迫遗传为人父母所造成的所谓心理伤害则是主观伤害,这种区别应得到承认。关于基因亲子关系的流行观念延续了埃文斯女士的伴侣所表达的主观担忧,但面对未来的技术发展,基因亲子关系的概念本身可能会受到压力。在生殖技术飞速发展的背景下,这些观念正变得不合时宜。为了避免纠纷,需要更大的灵活性。在出现争议的情况下,父母身份的经济和法律组成部分应当是可以协商的,而不 应假定其必然来自遗传父权。为减少发生争议的机会,应完善非移植胚胎冷冻保存的同意协议。夫妻双方应考虑到离婚或感情破裂的可能性,并应了解在这种情况下,胚胎可根据任何一方的要求被销毁。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Deciding the fate of disputed embryos: ethical issues in the case of Natallie Evans.

Background: A number of disputes have arisen in recent years over the status of non-transferred embryos cryopreserved during in vitro fertilisation. One such case is that of Natallie Evans who in April 2007 lost her final attempt to prevent the destruction of embryos created with the sperm of her former partner. Ms Evans had been rendered infertile by cancer treatment, and the embryos represented her only chance of having genetically related children.

Discussion: Arguments over stored embryos often conflate different concepts of parenthood. The effects of 'forcing' genetic parenthood on a man are mistakenly presented as being analogous with forcing women to bear children. Likewise, there is a tendency to assume that genetic parenthood necessarily involves legal, financial and psychological implications. Men (or women) who object to becoming parents should be encouraged to specify which aspects of parenthood they regard as being harmful. While the financial or physical burdens of forced parenthood involve objective harms, the putative psychological harms of enforced genetic parenthood are subjective, and this distinction should be recognised. Popular beliefs about genetic parenthood perpetuate the kinds of subjective concerns expressed by Ms Evans' partner, but the concept of genetic parenthood itself may come under pressure in the face of future technological developments.

Summary: Historical legal requirements obliging men to provide for their genetic offspring still pervade in the law. These perceptions are becoming outmoded in context of rapidly-moving reproductive technologies. To avoid disputes greater flexibility is required. The economic and legal components of parenthood should be negotiable in cases where disputes arise, and should not be assumed to flow inexorably from genetic paternity. To reduce the chances of disputes arising, consent protocols for cryopreservation of non-transferred embryos should be refined. Couples should address the possibility of divorce or the breakup of their relationships, and should be made aware that embryos can be destroyed at the behest of either party in these circumstances.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Male subfertility and the role of micronutrient supplementation: clinical and economic issues. Prediction of individual probabilities of livebirth and multiple birth events following in vitro fertilization (IVF): a new outcomes counselling tool for IVF providers and patients using HFEA metrics. Folic acid and human reproduction-ten important issues for clinicians. A population based economic analysis of cross-border payments for fertility services in Luxembourg. Comparison of selected cryoprotective agents to stabilize meiotic spindles of human oocytes during cooling.
×
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