Missing Protections

D. Fox
{"title":"Missing Protections","authors":"D. Fox","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780190675721.003.0003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"No governmental agency or authority seriously polices reproductive negligence. The best practices set forth by industry organizations are completely voluntary and routinely ignored, and there isn’t even any reliable or comprehensive system to track the wrongful thwarting of family planning. The breakneck pace of reproductive advances isn’t the only reason that test tubes and tube ties have eluded meaningful oversight: Four factors explain this regulatory vacuum. First, many are wary of ceding the state control on any matter involving procreation—red tape would raise prices on valuable services, making it harder for poor people to pay for them. Second is the political economy of reproductive technology in the United States: The free-market origins of infertility treatment let it develop unimpeded by government oversight, in the private sphere of for-profit clinics that function less as medical practices than trade businesses. A third factor that cuts against regulation is its murky electoral implications, even in reliably red or blue districts—fear of fracturing their political bases leads prudent officials to avoid wading into the morass. Fourth and finally is the limited public outcry to address reproductive negligence. Besides, steep costs and selective treatment coverage leaves many patients unable even to fund a legal challenge if things go wrong. State legislatures place damage caps and other barriers in the way of bringing suit. And trials can be a spectacle for plaintiffs wary of exposing personal matters to the public glare of open court.","PeriodicalId":170927,"journal":{"name":"Birth Rights and Wrongs","volume":"108 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-07-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Birth Rights and Wrongs","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190675721.003.0003","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

No governmental agency or authority seriously polices reproductive negligence. The best practices set forth by industry organizations are completely voluntary and routinely ignored, and there isn’t even any reliable or comprehensive system to track the wrongful thwarting of family planning. The breakneck pace of reproductive advances isn’t the only reason that test tubes and tube ties have eluded meaningful oversight: Four factors explain this regulatory vacuum. First, many are wary of ceding the state control on any matter involving procreation—red tape would raise prices on valuable services, making it harder for poor people to pay for them. Second is the political economy of reproductive technology in the United States: The free-market origins of infertility treatment let it develop unimpeded by government oversight, in the private sphere of for-profit clinics that function less as medical practices than trade businesses. A third factor that cuts against regulation is its murky electoral implications, even in reliably red or blue districts—fear of fracturing their political bases leads prudent officials to avoid wading into the morass. Fourth and finally is the limited public outcry to address reproductive negligence. Besides, steep costs and selective treatment coverage leaves many patients unable even to fund a legal challenge if things go wrong. State legislatures place damage caps and other barriers in the way of bringing suit. And trials can be a spectacle for plaintiffs wary of exposing personal matters to the public glare of open court.
缺少保护
没有任何政府机构或权威认真监管生育疏忽。行业组织制定的最佳做法完全是自愿的,经常被忽视,甚至没有任何可靠或全面的系统来追踪对计划生育的错误阻挠。生殖技术的飞速发展并不是试管和试管连接逃避有效监管的唯一原因:有四个因素可以解释这种监管真空。首先,许多人对放弃国家对任何涉及生育问题的控制持谨慎态度——繁文缛节会提高宝贵服务的价格,使穷人更难支付这些服务。其次是美国生殖技术的政治经济:不孕症治疗的自由市场起源使其不受政府监管的阻碍,在营利性诊所的私人领域发展,这些诊所的功能与其说是医疗实践,不如说是贸易业务。第三个不利于监管的因素是其模糊的选举含义,即使是在可靠的红蓝地区——由于担心破坏他们的政治基础,谨慎的官员避免涉入泥沼。第四,也是最后一点,公众在解决生育过失问题上的呼声有限。此外,高昂的费用和选择性治疗的覆盖范围使许多患者在出现问题时甚至无法支付法律诉讼费用。州立法机构设置了损害赔偿上限和其他诉讼障碍。对于那些不愿在公开法庭上暴露个人问题的原告来说,审判可能是一场奇观。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信