BMC Medical Ethics 18 (1):18 (2017)

BackgroundProfessional guidelines have addressed ethical dilemmas posed by a few types of nontraditional procreative arrangements, but many questions arise regarding how providers view and make decisions about these and other such arrangements.MethodsThirty-seven ART providers and 10 patients were interviewed in-depth for approximately 1 h each. Interviews were systematically analyzed.ResultsProviders 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, 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. 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.ConclusionsThese 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.Trial registrationNot applicable.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1186/s12910-017-0177-x
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 57,109
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Payment for Research Participation: A Coercive Offer?A. Wertheimer & F. G. Miller - 2008 - Journal of Medical Ethics 34 (5):389-392.

View all 7 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

The Wizard Behind the Curtain: Programmers as Providers.Mark A. Graber & Olivia Bailey - 2016 - Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine 11:4.
What Ethical Dilemmas Are Japanese Physicians Faced With?Atsushi Asai - 1997 - Eubios Journal of Asian and International Bioethics 7 (6):162-165.
Multicultural Health Care in Practice.Gert Olthuis & Godelieve Heterevann - 2003 - Health Care Analysis 11 (3):199-206.
Ethical Issues in the Psychotherapies.Martin Lakin - 1988 - Oxford University Press.


Added to PP index

Total views
16 ( #618,138 of 2,411,471 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #538,999 of 2,411,471 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes