Journal of the Knowledge Economy

, Volume 6, Issue 4, pp 704–716 | Cite as

Ethical Vignettes and Knowledge Economy: Priorities and Sequelae in Reproductive Health

Article
  • 135 Downloads

Abstract

The objectives of this study were (1) to elucidate ethical priorities in reproductive health in studies published between 1986 and 2012, and (2) to address the place of clinical ethics in reproductive health knowledge economy through comparative analysis of country-based ethical vignettes and practices. A total of 101 studies are identified through the PubMed portal. Recruited studies are inclusive for their focus and level of evidence (I, II-1, 2, 3). Pooled prevalence of the ethical problems, their approximate determinants, and outcomes are modeled as measurable outcomes. Ethical debates are correlated with the extrapolated maternal and perinatal mortality rates. Calculations use cases as units of analysis. This meta-study prioritizes the following ethical issues: patient’s autonomy, adolescent pregnancy, fetal surgery, cross-border reproduction, health insurance constraints, surrogacy, stem cell registry, and reproductive health in mentally ill. Clinical pregnancy rate from the transferred embryos is 17–22 %. Sixty percent of couples consent for posthumous reproduction, and 47 % consent for fetal surgeries for the nonlethal conditions; 48.2 % of pregnant adolescents choose to continue their pregnancy, 45 % opt to terminate, and 6 % miscarry. Abortion debates take pro-choice (66.7%), pro-life (6.7 %), and balanced (26.7 %) arguments. No correlations are found between presented ethical problems, maternal and perinatal mortality ratios per country (r2 = 0.117–0.209). Structurally too, the cost of prime knowledge products, like reproductive health education—has tripled adjusted for inflation. Nevertheless, the relative power of the costs for the malpractices and adverse outcomes against knowledge products remains assuredly higher. An accurate definition of the ethical norms is essential and may impact on the reproductive health knowledge economy on both system and case levels. At the system level, it promotes a moral foundation to maximize wellfare; at the case level, it assists physicians in identifying and resolving ethical issues to minimize legal aid expenses.

Keywords

Knowledge economy in clinical ethics Maternal–fetal conflicts Posthumous reproduction Stem cell research and registry 

References

  1. Adams, K. E. (2002). Ethical issues in gynecology: adolescent confidentiality, provider conscience and abortion, and patient choice of provider gender. Current Women’s Health Report, 2(6), 423–428.Google Scholar
  2. Agarwal, S. K., Estrada, S., Foster, W. G., et al. (2007). What motivates women to take part in clinical and basic science endometriosis research? Bioethics, 21(5), 263–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anonymous (2000). The declaration of Monaco. Bulletin of Medical Ethics, (157):11Google Scholar
  4. Anonymous. (2006). NIH State-of-the-Science Conference Statement on cesarean delivery on maternal request. NIH Consens State Sci Statements, 23(1), 1–29.Google Scholar
  5. Aruda, M. M., McCabe, M., Litty, C., et al. (2008). Adolescent pregnancy diagnosis and outcomes: a six-year clinical sample. Journal of Pediatrics and Adolescent Gynecology, 21(1), 17–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Athar, S. (2008). Enhancement technologies and the person: an Islamic view. Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics, 36(1), 59–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Balint, J. A. (2002). Ethical issues in stem cell research. Albany Law Review, 65(3), 729–742.Google Scholar
  8. Balint, J. A. (2005). A caring partnership: can we gain control? The Mount Sinai Journal of Medicine, 72(2), 100–104.Google Scholar
  9. Ballantyne, A., Newson, A., Luna, F., et al. (2009). Prenatal diagnosis and abortion for congenital abnormalities: is it ethical to provide one without the other? American Journal of Bioethics, 9(8), 48–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Baylis, F., Beagan, B., Johnston, J., et al. (2003). Cryopreserved human embryos in Canada and their availability for research. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology Canada, 25(12), 1026–1031.Google Scholar
  11. Bergeron, V. (2007). The ethics of cesarean section on maternal request: a feminist critique of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists’ position on patient-choice surgery. Bioethics, 21(9), 478–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bostrom, N. (2005). In defense of posthuman dignity. Bioethics, 19(3), 202–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Camby, C. (2008). The French Biomedicine Agency and medically assisted reproduction. Bulletin de l’Academie Nationale de Medecine, 192(1), 17–21. Discussion, 21–2.Google Scholar
  14. Clune, A. (2009). Deeper problems for Noonan’s probability argument against abortion: on a charitable reading of Noonan’s conception criterion of humanity. Epub, Oct: Bioethics. 26.Google Scholar
  15. Cohen, C. B. (1997). Unmanaged care: the need to regulate new reproductive technologies in the United States. Bioethics, 11(3–4), 348–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cook, R. J., & Dickens, B. M. (2002). Human rights and HIV-positive women. International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics, 77(1), 55–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cook, R. J., & Dickens, B. M. (2009). From reproductive choice to reproductive justice. International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics, 106(2), 106–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cook, R. J., Dickens, B. M., & Erdman, J. N. (2006). Emergency contraception, abortion and evidence-based law. International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics, 93(2), 191–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Czarkowski, M. (2009). Guidelines on research on human biological materials. Polski Merkuriusz Lekarski, 27(160), 349–352.Google Scholar
  20. Davis, D. S. (1997). Legal trends in bioethics. Journal of Clinical Ethics, 8(4), 405–410.Google Scholar
  21. de Wachter, M. A. (2004). Ethical aspects of cryobiology: responsible applications in biomedicine and in clinical practice. Cryobiology, 48(2), 205–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Dickens, B. M. (2008). Legal developments in assisted reproduction. International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics, 101(2), 211–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Dickens, B. M., & Cook, R. J. (2006). Conflict of interest: legal and ethical aspects. International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics, 92(2), 192–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Dickens, B. M., & Cook, R. J. (2007). Reproductive health and public health ethics. International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics, 99(1), 75–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Dickens, B. M., & Cook, R. J. (2008). Multiple pregnancy: legal and ethical issues. International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics, 103(3), 270–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Donchin, A. (2009). Toward a gender-sensitive assisted reproduction policy. Bioethics, 23(1), 28–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Dudzinski, D. M. (2006). Compounding vulnerability: pregnancy and schizophrenia. American Journal of Bioethics, 6(2), W1–W14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Dumitrache, C., & Drăghia, R. (1993). Alternatives in human reproduction. Methods, indications, prognosis, bioethical problems. Rom Journal of Endocrinology, 31, 5–22.Google Scholar
  29. Eberl, J. T. (2009). The complex nature of Jewish and Catholic bioethics. American Journal of Bioethics, 9(11), 31–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Edwards, R. G., Benagiano, G., & Dahl, E. (2009). Ethics, law and moral philosophy of reproductive biomedicine. Foreword. Reproductive Biomedicine Online, 18(Suppl 1), 5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Evans, J. R. (1993). International challenges and opportunities in health. Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics, 21(1), 10–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Fiester, A. (2005). Ethical issues in animal cloning. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, 48(3), 328–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Goering, S. (2009). Postnatal reproductive autonomy: promoting relational autonomy and self-trust in new parents. Bioethics, 23(1), 9–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Gracia, D. (1988). Spain: new problems, new books. The Hastings Center Report, 18(4), S29–S30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Habgood, J. S. (1985). Medical ethics—a Christian view. Journal of Medical Ethics, 11(1), 12–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hahn, S. J., & Craft-Rosenberg, M. (2002). The disclosure decisions of parents who conceive children using donor eggs. Journal of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Neonatal Nursing, 31(3), 283–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Halila, R. (2003). The role of national ethics commissions in Finland. Bioethics, 17(4), 357–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hall, M. A., & Schneider, C. E. (2009). Professional obligations when patients pay out of pocket. The Journal of Family Practice, 58(11), E1–E4.Google Scholar
  39. Hill, E. C. (1987). Obstetrics and gynecology. JAMA, 258(16), 2276–2277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Hyun, I. (2010). The bioethics of stem cell research and therapy. The Journal of Clinical Investigation, 120(1), 71–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. International Stem Cell Banking Initiative. (2009). Consensus guidance for banking and supply of human embryonic stem cell lines for research purposes. Stem Cell Reviews, 5(4), 301–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Johnson, M. H. (2002). The art of regulation and the regulation of ART: the impact of regulation on research and clinical practice. The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 9(4), 399–413.Google Scholar
  43. Jones, T. R. (1996). Speak no evil: physician silence in the face of professional impropriety. JAMA, 276(9), 753–754.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Krahn, T. (2009). Preimplantation genetic diagnosis: does age of onset matter (anymore)? Medicine Health Care and Philosophy, 12(2), 187–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Kress, H. (2006). Health protection and embryo protection from an ethical-legal perspective. report of the Bioethics Committee of Rheinland-Pfalz on the need to revise the embryo protection and stem cell laws. Ethik Medicine, 18(1).Google Scholar
  46. Krones, T., Neuwohner, E., El Ansari, S., et al. (2006). Desire for a child and desired children—possibilities and limits of reproductive biomedicine. Ethik Medicine, 18(1), 51–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Kukla, R., Kuppermann, M., Little, M., et al. (2009). Finding autonomy in birth. Bioethics, 23(1), 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Latham, S. R. (2009a). Between public opinion and public policy: human embryonic stem-cell research and path-dependency. The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 37(4), 800–806.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Latham, S. R. (2009b). The once and future debate on human embryonic stem cell research. Yale Journal of Health Policy Law and Ethics, 9(Suppl), 483–494.Google Scholar
  50. Lebech, A. M. (1997). Anonymity and informed consent in artificial procreation: a report from Denmark. Bioethics, 11(3–4), 336–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Lema, V. M., Mbondo, M., & Kamau, E. M. (2009). Informed consent for clinical trials: a review. East African Medical Journal, 86(3), 133–142.Google Scholar
  52. Leonir, N. (1993). French, European, and international legislation on bioethics. Suffolk University Law School:. Law Review, 27(4), 1249–1270.Google Scholar
  53. Letur-Könirsch, H. (2004). Oocyte donation in France and national balance sheet (GEDO). Different European approaches. Gynecology, Obstetrics, and Fertility, 32(2), 108–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Long, S. A. (2000). A conflict of interest in reproductive medicine. Ethics & Medicine, 16(2), 54–57.Google Scholar
  55. Lyerly, A. D., Cefalo, R. C., Socol, M., et al. (2001). Attitudes of maternal-fetal specialists concerning maternal-fetal surgery. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 185(5), 1052–1058.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Lyerly, A. D., Mitchell, L. M., Armstrong, E. M., et al. (2007). Risks, values, and decision making surrounding pregnancy. Obstetrics and Gynecology, 109(4), 979–984.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Macklin, R. (1995). Ethics, informed consent, and assisted reproduction. Journal of Assisted Reproduction, 12(8), 484–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Matevosyan, N. R. (2009). Reproductive health in women with serious mental illnesses: A review. Sexuality and Disability, 27(2),109–118.Google Scholar
  59. Matevosyan, N. R. (2010). Pregnancy and postpartum specifics in women with schizophrenia. Archives of Gynecology & Obstetrics, 283(2), 141–147.Google Scholar
  60. Matevosyan, N. R. (2012a). Legal causes and council in reproductive health. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law. doi:10.1007/s11196-012-9274-9.
  61. Matevosyan, N. R. (2012b) Court-visited obstetrical and fertility procedures. Archives of Gynecology & Obstetrics, 289(S.5), 1195–1203.Google Scholar
  62. McDonnell, O., & Allison, J. (2006). From biopolitics to bioethics: church, state, medicine and assisted reproductive technology in Ireland. Sociology of Health and Illness, 28(6), 817–837.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. McKelvey, A., David, A. L., Shenfield, F., et al. (2009). The impact of cross-border reproductive care or ‘fertility tourism’ on NHS maternity services. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 116(11), 1520–1523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. McLeod, C. (2009). Rich discussion about reproductive autonomy. Bioethics; 23(1), ii–iii.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Mertes H, Pennings G (2009). Ethical aspects of the use of stem cell derived gametes for reproduction. Health Care Anal. Epub, Oct 7 Google Scholar
  66. Meyer, M. N., & Fossett, J. W. (2009). The more things change: the new NIH Guidelines on human stem cell research. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal, 19(3), 289–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Myser, C. (2008). Ethnographic insights regarding the “social role” and “moral status” of the fetus as “patient”: comparing developed (United States & Sweden) and developing (India) countries. American Journal of Bioethics, 8(7), 50–52. Discussion, W4-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Newell, C. (2006). Disability, bioethics, and rejected knowledge. The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, 31(3), 269–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Niemelä, J. (2010). What puts the 'yuck' in the yuck factor? Bioethics, 25, 267–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Park, P. J., Colletti, E., & Ozturk, F. (2009). Factors determining the risk of inadvertent retroviral transduction of male germ cells after in utero gene transfer in sheep. Human Gene Therapy, 20(3), 201–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Pellegrino, E. D. (1987). Ethics. JAMA, 258(16), 2298–2300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Pellerin, D. (2002). Stem cells and cell therapy. Contribution to the ethical debate. Comptes Rendus Biologies, 325(10), 1059–1063.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Pennings, G. (2007). Decision-making authority of patients and fertility specialists in Belgian law. Reproductive Biomed Online, 15(1), 19–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Pennings, G., de Wert, G., Shenfield, F., et al. (2008). ESHRE task force on ethics and law 15: cross-border reproductive care. Human Reproduction, 23(10), 2182–2184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Revel, M. (2003). Human reproductive cloning, embryo stem cells and germline gene intervention: an Israeli perspective. Medicine and Law, 22(4), 701–732.Google Scholar
  76. Rosenthal, M. S. (2010). A preventive ethics approach to IVF in the age of octuplets. Fertility and Sterility, 93(2), 339–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Rothman, B. K. (1985). The products of conception: the social context of reproductive choices. Journal of Medical Ethics, 11(4), 188–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Sahinoglu-Pelin, S. (2002). Artificial reproductive technologies (ART) applications in Turkey as viewed by feminists. Human Reproduction and Genetic Ethics, 8(1), 7–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Samtani, B. S., Jadue, Z. M., & Beca, I. J. P. (2009). How does Hinduism analyze an ethical clinical dilemma. Revista Medica de Chile, 137(11), 1511–1515.Google Scholar
  80. Schenker, J. G. (2000). Women’s reproductive health: monotheistic religious perspectives. International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics, 70(1), 77–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Seavilleklein, V. (2009). Challenging the rhetoric of choice in prenatal screening. Bioethics, 23(1), 68–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Shenfield, F. (2005). Semantics and ethics of human embryonic stem-cell research. Lancet, 365(9477), 2071–2073.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Shenfield, F., Pennings, G., Cohen, J., et al. (2005). ESHRE Task Force on Ethics and Law 10: surrogacy. Human Reproduction, 20(10), 2705–2707.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Sills, E. S., & Healy, C. M. (2008). Building Irish families through surrogacy: medical and judicial issues for the advanced reproductive technologies. Reproductive Health, 4(5), 9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Steinbock, B. (1995). A philosopher looks at assisted reproduction. Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics, 12(8), 543–551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Strong, C. (2005). Harming by conceiving: a review of misconceptions and a new analysis. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, 30(5), 491–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Su, B., & Macer, D. R. (2005). A sense of autonomy is preserved under Chinese reproductive policies. New Genetics and Society, 24(1), 15–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Taymor, K., & Scott, C. T. (2009). The practical consequences of a national human embryonic stem cell registry. Stem Cell Reviews, 5(4), 315–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Timpson, J. (1996). Abortion: the antithesis of womanhood? Journal of Advanced Nursing, 23(4), 776–785.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Turner, L. (2009). Does bioethics exist? Journal of Medical Ethics, 35(12), 778–780.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Ueda, N., Kushi, N., Nakatsuka, M., et al. (2008). Study of views on posthumous reproduction, focusing on its relation with views on family and religion in modern Japan. Acta Medica Okayama, 62(5), 285–296.Google Scholar
  92. Walters, L. (1986). Ethical issues in intrauterine diagnosis and therapy. Fetal Therapy, 1(1), 32–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Warnock, M. (1987). The good of the child. Bioethics, 1(2), 141–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. WHO. (2012). Reproductive Health. http://www.who.int/topics/reproductive_health/en/.
  95. Wolf, S. M., Gupta, R., & Kohlhepp, P. (2009). Gene therapy oversight: lessons for nanobiotechnology. The Journal of Law, Medicine, and Ethics, 37(4), 659–684.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Woodcock, S. (2010). Abortion counseling and the informed consent dilemma. Bioethics, 25, 495–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Zahedi, F., & Larijani, B. (2008). National bioethical legislation and guidelines for biomedical research in the Islamic Republic of Iran. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 86(8), 630–634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Zoloth, L., Backhus, L., & Woodruff, T. (2008). Waiting to be born: the ethical implications of the generation of “NUBorn” and “NUAge” mice from pre-pubertal ovarian tissue. The American Journal of Bioethics, 8(6), 21–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Open Medical InstituteSalzburgAustria

Personalised recommendations