Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF ) Freely available
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (3)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Stern, J.E.
Right arrow Articles by DeVries, K.O.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Stern, J.E.
Right arrow Articles by DeVries, K.O.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Human Reproduction, Vol. 18, No. 6, 1343-1352, June 2003
© 2003 European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology

Determining access to assisted reproductive technology: reactions of clinic directors to ethically complex case scenarios

J.E. Stern1,5, C.P. Cramer2, R.M. Green3, A. Garrod4 and K.O. DeVries3

1 Department of Ob/Gyn Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, One Medical Center Drive, Lebanon, NH 03756, 2 Department of Psychological and Brain Science, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH, 03755, 3 Ethics Institute, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH 03755 and 4 Department of Education, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH 03755, USA

5 To whom correspondence should be addressed. e-mail judy.e.stern{at}dartmouth.edu

BACKGROUND: Our aim was to increase understanding of how patient selection is handled by assisted reproductive technology (ART) clinicians. METHODS: Ethically complex case scenarios were evaluated by the directors of USA ART clinics. Scenarios included using a son as sperm donor for his father, sex selection without associated disease, treatment of morally irresponsible couples, and a dispute over embryo disposition. Respondents reviewed eight scenarios and gave their opinions on whether to offer treatment. Reasons given for these decisions were placed into one of 13 categories. RESULTS: Survey response rate was 57%. Between 3 and 50% of respondents would treat in each case. Of reasons given, ‘conditional’ responses (requiring counselling, blood tests or agreement to other ‘conditions’) were common (31.4%). Non-maleficence (risk) accounted for 29.4% of responses, philosophy of medicine 18.9%, respect for patient autonomy 5.9% and legal concerns 4.6%. Discrimination and threats were each significant in one case. Reasons evoking absolutist beliefs, personal discomfort, commitment to justice, religion and ethical relativism were rare. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians felt conflict between a desire to respect patient autonomy and their discomfort over the risk associated with the procedure. They raised concerns about misuse of medical technology. Attempts to resolve complex issues through negotiation and compromise were common.

Key words: ART/case scenarios/decision making/ethics/setting limits


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.