人类人工授精由捐助者和澳大利亚社会。

Clinical reproduction and fertility Pub Date : 1985-03-01
G Rawson
{"title":"人类人工授精由捐助者和澳大利亚社会。","authors":"G Rawson","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Findings from a national sample of 989 persons and an 'Opinion Leader' survey of 279 executive and ordinary members of 40 organizations identified as having an interest in AID showed that Australians overall approved of the procedure for helping infertile married couples, only 17% of the national sample unequivocally disapproving. Key variables in determining opinions on AID included age, education, country of origin, family status, religion and exposure to infertility. However only 15% of national respondents accepted that AID should be made available to any unmarried women on request although opinions were more evenly spread on its provision to unmarried women in a long-term relationship with a man. Over one-third of 'Opinion Leaders' believed that children should never be told of their AID conception, 13% that they should be given identifying and one third non-identifying information on the donor. A majority believed that AID should be directly carried out or supervised by doctors in hospital clinics. There was strong opposition to business or voluntary organization involvement. Suggestions for changes in the law, while emphasizing protection of donors, recipients, children, persons who ran AID programs and control over futuristic research activities, often showed a misunderstanding of the legal process. The major reasons for exclusion of donors were genetic defects and medical problems although many behavioural characteristics were mentioned. Views on recipients' rights to choose the sex of the AID child were marginally against the proposition.</p>","PeriodicalId":10478,"journal":{"name":"Clinical reproduction and fertility","volume":"3 1","pages":"1-19"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1985-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Human artificial insemination by donor and the Australian community.\",\"authors\":\"G Rawson\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Findings from a national sample of 989 persons and an 'Opinion Leader' survey of 279 executive and ordinary members of 40 organizations identified as having an interest in AID showed that Australians overall approved of the procedure for helping infertile married couples, only 17% of the national sample unequivocally disapproving. Key variables in determining opinions on AID included age, education, country of origin, family status, religion and exposure to infertility. However only 15% of national respondents accepted that AID should be made available to any unmarried women on request although opinions were more evenly spread on its provision to unmarried women in a long-term relationship with a man. Over one-third of 'Opinion Leaders' believed that children should never be told of their AID conception, 13% that they should be given identifying and one third non-identifying information on the donor. A majority believed that AID should be directly carried out or supervised by doctors in hospital clinics. There was strong opposition to business or voluntary organization involvement. Suggestions for changes in the law, while emphasizing protection of donors, recipients, children, persons who ran AID programs and control over futuristic research activities, often showed a misunderstanding of the legal process. The major reasons for exclusion of donors were genetic defects and medical problems although many behavioural characteristics were mentioned. Views on recipients' rights to choose the sex of the AID child were marginally against the proposition.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10478,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical reproduction and fertility\",\"volume\":\"3 1\",\"pages\":\"1-19\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1985-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical reproduction and fertility\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical reproduction and fertility","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

对全国989人的抽样调查和对40个组织的279名行政人员和普通成员的“意见领袖”调查结果表明,澳大利亚人总体上赞成帮助不孕夫妇的程序,只有17%的全国抽样明确反对。决定对艾滋病的意见的关键变量包括年龄、教育、原籍国、家庭状况、宗教和是否患有不孕症。然而,只有15%的全国受访者认为应应要求向任何未婚妇女提供艾滋病治疗,尽管对向与男子有长期关系的未婚妇女提供艾滋病治疗的意见更为平均。超过三分之一的“意见领袖”认为,永远不应该告诉儿童他们的艾滋病概念,13%的人认为应该向他们提供捐助者的身份信息,三分之一的人认为不应该向他们提供捐助者的身份信息。大多数人认为艾滋病应由医院诊所的医生直接实施或监督。企业或志愿组织的参与遭到强烈反对。修改法律的建议,虽然强调保护捐赠者、接受者、儿童、开展艾滋病项目的人以及对未来研究活动的控制,但往往显示出对法律程序的误解。拒捐者的主要原因是遗传缺陷和医疗问题,尽管也提到了许多行为特征。对受助人选择艾滋病儿童性别的权利的看法略微反对这一主张。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Human artificial insemination by donor and the Australian community.

Findings from a national sample of 989 persons and an 'Opinion Leader' survey of 279 executive and ordinary members of 40 organizations identified as having an interest in AID showed that Australians overall approved of the procedure for helping infertile married couples, only 17% of the national sample unequivocally disapproving. Key variables in determining opinions on AID included age, education, country of origin, family status, religion and exposure to infertility. However only 15% of national respondents accepted that AID should be made available to any unmarried women on request although opinions were more evenly spread on its provision to unmarried women in a long-term relationship with a man. Over one-third of 'Opinion Leaders' believed that children should never be told of their AID conception, 13% that they should be given identifying and one third non-identifying information on the donor. A majority believed that AID should be directly carried out or supervised by doctors in hospital clinics. There was strong opposition to business or voluntary organization involvement. Suggestions for changes in the law, while emphasizing protection of donors, recipients, children, persons who ran AID programs and control over futuristic research activities, often showed a misunderstanding of the legal process. The major reasons for exclusion of donors were genetic defects and medical problems although many behavioural characteristics were mentioned. Views on recipients' rights to choose the sex of the AID child were marginally against the proposition.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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