欧盟对生殖保健法规的态度:跨境生殖保健旅行者与当地公民的比较。

IF 1.7 Q3 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY Facts Views and Vision in ObGyn Pub Date : 2016-09-01
R Hertz, M K Nelson, J Suñol
{"title":"欧盟对生殖保健法规的态度:跨境生殖保健旅行者与当地公民的比较。","authors":"R Hertz, M K Nelson, J Suñol","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This paper compares two populations with respect to attitudes toward the regulation of reproductive care by the European Union. The two populations are 252 individuals who crossed a national border to receive treatment at an independent clinic in Spain and 45 Spanish citizens who received treatment in their home country. Online surveys were sent to former patients (from many different countries) of a private Spanish clinic. By comparing those who engaged in cross-border reproductive care (CBRC) with those who did not, we examined attitudes toward whether or not the EU should extend to all clients in all countries the type of services the clinic provided. These services included access to anonymous donors and conception via egg or embryo donation. We found that those who travelled abroad were less in favor of EU expanding regulation for the type of services they received than were those in Spain. This study is unusual in focusing on political attitudes rather than the nature of the experience and consequences of cross-border reproductive care. We suggest that individuals who engage in CBRC might be reluctant to see the EU extend reproductive care broadly because debates within both the EU and their home countries could result in the elimination of options that are now available through travel. We suggest that individuals from countries that are popular destinations for CBRC like Spain might want to extend EU reproductive care more broadly so as to reduce the pressure on the medical services in their own country. We suggest directions for further research.</p>","PeriodicalId":46400,"journal":{"name":"Facts Views and Vision in ObGyn","volume":"8 3","pages":"147-160"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2016-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5172571/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Attitudes toward Regulations of Reproductive Care in the European Union: A Comparison between Travellers for Cross-Border Reproductive Care and Citizens of the Local Country.\",\"authors\":\"R Hertz, M K Nelson, J Suñol\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>This paper compares two populations with respect to attitudes toward the regulation of reproductive care by the European Union. The two populations are 252 individuals who crossed a national border to receive treatment at an independent clinic in Spain and 45 Spanish citizens who received treatment in their home country. Online surveys were sent to former patients (from many different countries) of a private Spanish clinic. By comparing those who engaged in cross-border reproductive care (CBRC) with those who did not, we examined attitudes toward whether or not the EU should extend to all clients in all countries the type of services the clinic provided. These services included access to anonymous donors and conception via egg or embryo donation. We found that those who travelled abroad were less in favor of EU expanding regulation for the type of services they received than were those in Spain. This study is unusual in focusing on political attitudes rather than the nature of the experience and consequences of cross-border reproductive care. We suggest that individuals who engage in CBRC might be reluctant to see the EU extend reproductive care broadly because debates within both the EU and their home countries could result in the elimination of options that are now available through travel. We suggest that individuals from countries that are popular destinations for CBRC like Spain might want to extend EU reproductive care more broadly so as to reduce the pressure on the medical services in their own country. We suggest directions for further research.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":46400,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Facts Views and Vision in ObGyn\",\"volume\":\"8 3\",\"pages\":\"147-160\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2016-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5172571/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Facts Views and Vision in ObGyn\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Facts Views and Vision in ObGyn","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文比较了两个群体对欧盟生殖保健监管的态度。这两个群体分别是252名跨越国界在西班牙一家独立诊所接受治疗的人和45名在本国接受治疗的西班牙公民。在线调查被发送给西班牙一家私人诊所的前患者(来自许多不同国家)。通过比较那些从事跨境生殖保健(银监会)的人和那些没有从事的人,我们考察了人们对欧盟是否应该将诊所提供的服务类型扩展到所有国家的所有客户的态度。这些服务包括接触匿名捐赠者和通过卵子或胚胎捐赠受孕。我们发现,与西班牙相比,那些出国旅行的人不太赞成欧盟扩大对他们所接受服务类型的监管。这项研究不同寻常地关注政治态度,而不是跨境生殖保健的经历和后果的性质。我们建议,参与银监会的个人可能不愿意看到欧盟广泛扩大生殖保健,因为欧盟及其母国内部的辩论可能会导致取消现在通过旅行可以获得的选择。我们建议,来自西班牙等银监会热门目的地国家的个人可能希望更广泛地扩大欧盟生殖保健,以减轻本国医疗服务的压力。我们建议进一步研究的方向。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Attitudes toward Regulations of Reproductive Care in the European Union: A Comparison between Travellers for Cross-Border Reproductive Care and Citizens of the Local Country.

This paper compares two populations with respect to attitudes toward the regulation of reproductive care by the European Union. The two populations are 252 individuals who crossed a national border to receive treatment at an independent clinic in Spain and 45 Spanish citizens who received treatment in their home country. Online surveys were sent to former patients (from many different countries) of a private Spanish clinic. By comparing those who engaged in cross-border reproductive care (CBRC) with those who did not, we examined attitudes toward whether or not the EU should extend to all clients in all countries the type of services the clinic provided. These services included access to anonymous donors and conception via egg or embryo donation. We found that those who travelled abroad were less in favor of EU expanding regulation for the type of services they received than were those in Spain. This study is unusual in focusing on political attitudes rather than the nature of the experience and consequences of cross-border reproductive care. We suggest that individuals who engage in CBRC might be reluctant to see the EU extend reproductive care broadly because debates within both the EU and their home countries could result in the elimination of options that are now available through travel. We suggest that individuals from countries that are popular destinations for CBRC like Spain might want to extend EU reproductive care more broadly so as to reduce the pressure on the medical services in their own country. We suggest directions for further research.

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
Facts Views and Vision in ObGyn
Facts Views and Vision in ObGyn OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY-
自引率
15.00%
发文量
59
期刊最新文献
3D versus 4K laparoscopic vaginal cuff closure after hysterectomy by surgeons in training: a prospective randomised trial. Achieving successful outcomes with endometrial ablation needs better case selection. Author's response. Caesarean scar defect and retained products of conception (RPOC): a step-by-step combined hysteroscopic and laparoscopic treatment. Electrosurgery: heating, sparking and electrical arcs.
×
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