Skip to main content
Log in

Secondary use of empirical research data in medical ethics papers on gamete donation: forms of use and pitfalls

  • On Gametes and Guidelines
  • Published:
Monash Bioethics Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper aims to provide a description of how authors publishing in medical ethics journals have made use of empirical research data in papers on the topic of gamete or embryo donation by means of references to studies conducted by others (secondary use). Rather than making a direct contribution to the theoretical methodological literature about the role empirical research data could play or should play in ethics studies, the focus is on the particular uses of these data and the problems that can be encountered with this use. In the selection of papers examined, apart from being used to describe the context, empirical evidence was mainly used to recount problems that needed solving. Few of the authors looked critically at the quality of the studies they quoted, and several instances were found of empirical data being used poorly or inappropriately. This study provides some initial baseline evidence that shows empirical data, in the form of references to studies, are sometimes being used in inappropriate ways. This suggests that medical ethicists should be more concerned about the quality of the empirical data selected, the appropriateness of the choice for a particular type of data (from a particular type of study) and the correct integration of this evidence in sound argumentation. Given that empirical data can be misused also when merely cited instead of reported, it may be worthwhile to explore good practice requirements for this type of use of empirical data in medical ethics.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. This is consistent with the way ‘empirical’ is used in the ongoing debates around empirical bioethics. Legal research (involving the use of case studies), as well as medical or fictional case studies were excluded from this definition, as were narrative accounts of medical techniques, descriptions of the history of medical treatments, or of events, policy, law or regulation, as this kind of research did not fit the definition of ‘empirical’ being used.

References

  • Adams, D.H. 2013. Conceptualising a child-centric paradigm. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 10: 369–381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Afshar, L., and A. Bagheri. 2013. Embryo donation in Iran: An ethical review. Developing World Bioethics 13: 119–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ashcroft, R. 2003. Constructing empirical bioethics: Foucauldian reflections on the empirical turn in bioethics research. Health Care Analysis 11: 3–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berg, J.W. 2001. Risky business: Evaluating oocyte donation. American Journal of Bioethics 1: 18–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borry, P., P. Schotsmans, and K. Dierickx. 2004. What is the role of empirical research in bioethical reflection and decision-making? An ethical analysis. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 7: 41–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borry, P., P. Schotsmans, and K. Dierickx. 2005. The birth of the empirical turn in bioethics. Bioethics 19: 49–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borry, P., P. Schotsmans, and K. Dierickx. 2006. Empirical research in bioethical journals. A quantitative analysis. Journal of Medical Ethics 32: 240–245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brzyski, R.G. 2001. Putting risk in perspective. American Journal of Bioethics 1: 25–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burr, J., and P. Reynolds. 2008. Thinking ethically about genetic inheritance: Liberal rights, communitarianism and the right to privacy for parents of donor insemination children. Journal of Medical Ethics 34: 281–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, C.B. 2001. The interests of egg donors: who is deceiving whom? American Journal of Bioethics 1: 20–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Vries, M., and E. Van Leeuwen. 2010. Reflective equilibrium and empirical data: third person moral experiences in empirical medical ethics. Bioethics 24: 490–498.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunn, M., M. Sheehan, T. Hope, and M. Parker. 2012. Toward methodological innovation in empirical ethics research. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 21: 466–480.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dresser, R. 2001. Donation, disclosure, and deception. American Journal of Bioethics 1: 15–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fox, D. 2008. Paying for particulars in people-to-be: Commercialisation, commodification and commensurability in human reproduction. Journal of Medical Ethics 34: 162–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frith, L. 2001. Beneath the rhetoric: The role of rights in the practice of non-anonymous gamete donation. Bioethics 15: 473–484.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frith, L. 2012. Symbiotic empirical ethics: A practical methodology. Bioethics 26(4): 198–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frith, L., and E. Blyth. 2013. They can’t have my embryo: The ethics of conditional embryo donation. Bioethics 27: 317–324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gurmankin, A.D. 2001. Risk information provided to prospective oocyte donors in a preliminary phone call. American Journal of Bioethics 1: 3–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hedgecoe, A. 2004. Critical bioethics: Beyond the social science critique of applied ethics. Bioethics 18: 120–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heng, B.C. 2008. Should fertility doctors and clinical embryologists be involved in the recruitment, counselling and reimbursement of egg donors? Journal of Medical Ethics 34: 414.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hope, T. 1999. Empirical medical ethics. Journal of Medical Ethics 25: 219–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holm, S., and M.F. Jonas. 2004. Engaging the world: The use of empirical research in bioethics and the regulation of biotechnology. Amsterdam: IOS Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hurst, S. 2010. What ‘empirical turn in bioethics’? Bioethics 24(8): 439–444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ives, J., and M. Dunn. 2010. Who’s arguing? A call for reflexivity in bioethics. Bioethics 24: 256–265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ives, J., and V. Provoost. 2015. Monash editorial. Monash Bioethics Review. doi:10.1007/s40592-015-0028-9.

  • Jadva, V., T. Freeman, W. Kramer, and S. Golombok. 2009. The experiences of adolescents and adults conceived by sperm donation: Comparisons by age of disclosure and family type. Human Reproduction 24: 1909–1919.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kalfoglou, A.L. 2001. Navigating conflict of interest in oocyte donation. American Journal of Bioethics 1: W1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kon, A. 2009. The role of empirical research in bioethics. American Journal of Bioethics 9: 59–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levine, A.D. 2010. Self-regulation, compensation, and the ethical recruitment of oocyte donors. Hastings Center Report 40: 25–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mastroianni, L. 2001. Risk evaluation and informed consent for ovum donation: A clinical perspective. American Journal of Bioethics 1: 28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Molewijk, A., A. Stiggelbout, W. Otten, H. Dupuis, and J. Kievit. 2004. Empirical data and moral theory, a plea for integrated empirical bioethics. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 7: 55–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mullen, M.A. 2001. What oocyte donors aren’t told? American Journal of Bioethics 1: W3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Price, D. 2013. Exploitation, akrasia, and Goldilocks: How many pounds for flesh for medical uses? Medical Law Review 21: 519–552.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ravelingien, A., and G. Pennings. 2013. The right to know your genetic parents: From open-identity gamete donation to routine paternity testing. American Journal of Bioethics 13: 33–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robertson, J.A. 2010. Is there an ethical problem here? Hastings Center Report 40: 3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salloch, S., J. Schildmann, and J. Vollmann. 2012. Empirical research in medical ethics: How conceptual accounts on normative-empirical collaboration may improve research practice. BMC Medical Ethics 13: 5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sauer, M.V. 2001. Egg donor solicitation: Problems exist, but do abuses? American Journal of Bioethics 1: 1–2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Solomon, M.Z. 2005. Realizing bioethics’ goals in practice: ten ways “is” can help “ought”. Hastings Center Report 35: 40–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stock, G. 2001. Eggs for sale: How much is too much? American Journal of Bioethics 1: 26–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strong, C. 2001. How should IVF programs handle initial disclosure of information to prospective ovum donors? American Journal of Bioethics 4: 23–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sugarman, J., N. Kass, and R. Faden. 2009. Categorizing empirical research in bioethics: Why count the ways? The American Journal of Bioethics 9: 66–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sugarman, J., and D. P. Sulmasy (Eds.). 2010. Methods in medical ethics. Georgetown University Press.

  • Sulmasy, D. P. 2010. Reading the medical ethics literature: A discourse on method. In: Methods in medical ethics, ed. J. Sugarman and D. Sulmasy, 315–328. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

  • van der Scheer, L., and G. Widdershoven. 2004. Integrated empirical ethics: Loss of normativity. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 7: 71–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weinberg, R. 2008. The moral complexity of sperm donation. Bioethics 22: 166–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White, G. 2001. No news here. American Journal of Bioethics 1: 29–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilkinson, S. 2012. Is the HFEA’s policy on compensating egg donors and egg sharers defensible? Medical Law Review 21: 173–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The author gratefully acknowledges Elke Van Hevele and Guido Pennings for their input in assessing the categories generated in the analysis and Jonathan Ives (Guest Editor), Joke Meheus, Guido Pennings and the reviewers for their valuable comments and suggestions.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Veerle Provoost.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Provoost, V. Secondary use of empirical research data in medical ethics papers on gamete donation: forms of use and pitfalls. Monash Bioeth. Rev. 33, 64–77 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40592-015-0029-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40592-015-0029-8

Keywords

Navigation