Cited by 15Reproductive Health and TechnologiesEthics and bioethics in healthcareReproductive Health and Contraception

Reframing the Debate Around State Responses to Infertility: Considering the Harms of Subfertility and Involuntary Childlessness

Open access
Brown, Rebecca C. H., Rogers, Wendy A., Entwistle, Vikki A., Bhattacharya, Siladitya·2016·Public Health Ethics

Abstract

Many countries are experiencing increasing levels of demand for access to assisted reproductive technologies (ART). Policies regarding who can access ART and with what (if any) support from a collective purse are highly contested, raising questions about what state responses are justified. Whilst much of this debate has focused on the status of infertility as a disease, we argue that this is something of a distraction, since disease framing does not provide the far-reaching, robust justification for state support that proponents of ART seem to suppose. Instead, we propose that debates about appropriate state responses should consider the various implications for health and broader well-being that may be associated with difficulties starting a family. We argue that the harms and disruption to valued life projects of subfertility-related suffering may provide a stronger basis for justifying state support in this context. Further, we suggest that, whilst ART may alleviate some of the harm resulting from subfertility, population-level considerations can indicate a broader range of interventions aimed at tackling different sources of subfertility-related harm, consistent with broader public health aims.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/phe/phw005

Cites

60 of 60 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Adoption of psychosocial interventions may remediate psychological stress associated with the diagnosis and management of infertility.

    “Adoption of psychosocial interventions may remediate psychological stress associated with the diagnosis, and management, of infertility [16,55–61].”

    From Psychosocial interventions for improving marital intimacy, sexual satisfaction, and quality of life of women and couples with infertility problems in low and middle-income countries: Systematic review protocol (2025) · cites this paper as [57]

    The Population-Level Considerations section says that awareness and discussion of fertility can reduce stigma and the psychological harms of childlessness. It does not establish that psychosocial interventions relieve stress specifically associated with infertility diagnosis or management; searches for psychosocial interventions and counselling did not locate that claim in our copy. Page numbers were not available in the indexed passages. (LLM, conf=0.78)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. In Vayena, E., Rowe, P. J. and Griffin, P. D. (eds), Current Practices and Controversies in Assisted Reproduction. Geneva: World Health Organisation, pp. 15-21.
  2. May, E. T. (1995). Barren in the Land of Promise: Childless Americans and the Pursuit of Happiness. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  3. Meniru, G. I., Brinsden, P. R. and Craft, I. L. (1997). A Handbook of Intrauterine Insemination. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  4. NICE. (2004). Fertility: Assessment and Treatment for People with Fertility Problems. London: RCOG Press.
  5. Rawls, J. (1971). A Theory of Justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Brown, R. C. H., Rogers, W. A., Entwistle, V. A., & Bhattacharya, S.
Affiliations
  • University of Aberdeen (GB)
  • Macquarie University (AU)
Corresponding author
Brown, Rebecca C. H.
Venue
Public Health Ethics
Published
2016-03-08
Volume
9
Issue
3
Pages
290-300
ISSN
  • 1754-9973 (ISSN-L)
  • 1754-9981
OpenAlex
W2305126855
Cited by
15
References
60
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 2 · 2019: 3 · 2017: 1
FWCI
1.77
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Public Health Ethics (publishedVersion)
  • ORCA Online Research @Cardiff (Cardiff University) (acceptedVersion)
  • PhilPapers (PhilPapers Foundation) (submittedVersion)
  • Aberdeen University Research Archive (Aberdeen University) (submittedVersion)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Reproductive Medicine › Reproductive Health and Technologies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics and bioethics in healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Reproductive Health and Contraception
Keywords
infertility, assisted reproduction, subfertility, involuntary childlessness, family formation, public health policy, population-level interventions, well-being

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review