CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 80Reproductive Health and TechnologiesEthics and bioethics in healthcareMedical and Health Sciences Research

Assisted reproductive technologies and equity of access issues

Open access
Peterson, M M·2005·Journal of Medical Ethics
DOI 10.1136/jme.2003.007542PMC PMC1734150
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

In Australia and other countries, certain groups of women have traditionally been denied access to assisted reproductive technologies (ARTs). These typically are single heterosexual women, lesbians, poor women, and those whose ability to rear children is questioned, particularly women with certain disabilities or who are older. The arguments used to justify selection of women for ARTs are most often based on issues such as scarcity of resources, and absence of infertility (in lesbians and single women), or on social concerns: that it "goes against nature"; particular women might not make good mothers; unconventional families are not socially acceptable; or that children of older mothers might be orphaned at an early age. The social, medical, legal, and ethical reasoning that has traditionally promoted this lack of equity in access to ARTs, and whether the criteria used for client deselection are ethically appropriate in any particular case, are explored by this review. In addition, the issues of distribution and just "gatekeeping" practices associated with these sensitive medical services are examined.

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 · 10.1136/jme.2003.007542

Cites

30 of 30 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?

  • Women who seek a medical evaluation for infertility differ from women who do not on important demographic, lifestyle, and access factors.

    “Since women who seek a medical evaluation for infertility differ from those women who do not on important demographic, lifestyle, and access factors (Farland, under review for publication) (10–18) additional analyses of infertility type were conducted using male factor infertility as the reference group.”

    From Infertility, fertility treatment, and risk of hypertension (2015) · cites this paper as [15]

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: 1

  1. Corley MC, Westerberg N, Elswick RK Jr, et al. Rationing organs using psychological and lifestyle criteria. Res Nurs Health 1998;21:327-37.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Peterson, M. M.
Affiliations
The University of Queensland (AU)
Corresponding author
Peterson, M M
Venue
Journal of Medical Ethics
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2005-04-29
Volume
31
Issue
5
Pages
280-285
ISSN
  • 0306-6800 (ISSN-L)
  • 1473-4257
DOI
10.1136/jme.2003.007542
PMC
PMC1734150
OpenAlex
W2168482503
Cited by
80
References
30
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 5
FWCI
0.59
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Medical Ethics (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DigitalGeorgetown (Georgetown University Library) (submittedVersion)
  • Griffith Research Online (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 › Medical and Health Sciences Research
Keywords
assisted reproduction, equitable access, gatekeeping, single women, lesbians, women with disabilities, older mothers, infertility, resource constraints
MeSH terms
Attitude of Health Personnel, Australia, Child, Child Development, Child Rearing, Family, Female, Fertilization in Vitro, Health Services Accessibility, Humans, Infertility, Prejudice, Social Values, Postmenopause, Homosexuality, Female, Patient Selection, Personal Autonomy, Reproductive Techniques, Assisted

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