↓ Skip to main content

Unconventional combinations of prospective parents: ethical challenges faced by IVF providers

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Ethics, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (89th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (82nd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
66 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Unconventional combinations of prospective parents: ethical challenges faced by IVF providers
Published in
BMC Medical Ethics, February 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12910-017-0177-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Robert Klitzman

Abstract

Professional guidelines have addressed ethical dilemmas posed by a few types of nontraditional procreative arrangements (e.g., gamete donations between family members), but many questions arise regarding how providers view and make decisions about these and other such arrangements. Thirty-seven ART providers and 10 patients were interviewed in-depth for approximately 1 h each. Interviews were systematically analyzed. Providers faced a range of challenges and ethical dilemmas concerning both the content and the process of decisions about requests for unconventional interfamilial and other reproductive combinations. Providers vary in how they respond - what they decide, who exactly decides (e.g., an ethics committee or not), and how - often undergoing complex decision-making processes. These combinations can involve creating or raising the child, and can shift over time - from initial ART treatment through to the child's birth. Patients' requests can vary from fully established to mere possibilities. Arrangements may also be unstable, fluid, or unexpected, posing challenges. Difficulties emerge concerning not only familial but social, combinations (e.g., between friends). These arrangements can involve blurry and confusing roles, questions about the welfare of the unborn child, and unanticipated and unfamiliar questions about how to weigh competing moral and scientific concerns - e.g., the autonomy of the individuals involved, and the potential risks and benefits. Clinicians may feel that these requests do not "smell right"; and at first respond with feelings of "yuck," and only later, carefully and explicitly consider the ethical principles involved. Proposed arrangements may, for instance, initially be felt to involve consanguineous individuals, but not in fact do so. Obtaining and verifying full and appropriate informed consent can be difficult, given implicit familial and/or cultural expectations and senses of duty. Social attitudes are changing, yet patients' views of these issues may also vary, based on their cultural backgrounds. These data, the first to examine how clinicians make decisions about unconventional reproductive arrangements, highlight several critical ethical questions and ambiguities, and variations in clinicians' responses. While several professional guidelines exist, the current data highlight additional challenges, and have vital implications for improving future guidelines, practice, education and research. Not applicable.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 66 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 66 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 10 15%
Student > Bachelor 9 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 8%
Researcher 4 6%
Other 12 18%
Unknown 19 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 17%
Social Sciences 10 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 14%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 8%
Arts and Humanities 4 6%
Other 8 12%
Unknown 19 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 21. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 July 2023.
All research outputs
#1,647,555
of 24,063,285 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Ethics
#143
of 1,030 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#33,094
of 314,211 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Ethics
#5
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,063,285 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,030 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 314,211 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 23 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.