人类免疫缺陷病毒血清阳性捐精者的妊娠代孕:伦理问题是什么?

Karen E Adams
{"title":"人类免疫缺陷病毒血清阳性捐精者的妊娠代孕:伦理问题是什么?","authors":"Karen E Adams","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Clinics that provide assisted reproductive technology (ART) are guided by general guidelines set forth by the American Society for Reproductive Medicine and its Ethics Committee and are free to set their own policies within those guidelines. This article presents a case in which a university clinic was presented with a novel request. A same-sex male couple, both positive for the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), asked to use one of the couple's sperm to establish a pregnancy in an unrelated gestational surrogate through in vitro fertilization, intracytoplasmic sperm injection, and embryo transfer. The couple's argument in favor of such a plan was that no documented case of HIV seroconversion had so far occurred in recipients of gametes from HIV-positive donors. Since gestational surrogates routinely accept the risks inherent in pregnancy and childbearing, an informed surrogate should be allowed to accept the risks of such an arrangement. They further argued that if no clinic were willing to provide such services, data regarding seroconversion would never be obtained. The university ethics committee examined the fertility clinic's policies and found the clinic's refusal to provide such services to be completely consistent with its policy that allows providing services to HIV-discordant couples, same-sex couples, and gestational surrogates, but that always acts to protect the surrogate from exposure to infectious risk.</p>","PeriodicalId":76028,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the American Medical Women's Association (1972)","volume":"58 3","pages":"138-40"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2003-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Gestational surrogacy for a human immunodeficiency virus seropositive sperm donor: what are the ethics?\",\"authors\":\"Karen E Adams\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Clinics that provide assisted reproductive technology (ART) are guided by general guidelines set forth by the American Society for Reproductive Medicine and its Ethics Committee and are free to set their own policies within those guidelines. This article presents a case in which a university clinic was presented with a novel request. A same-sex male couple, both positive for the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), asked to use one of the couple's sperm to establish a pregnancy in an unrelated gestational surrogate through in vitro fertilization, intracytoplasmic sperm injection, and embryo transfer. The couple's argument in favor of such a plan was that no documented case of HIV seroconversion had so far occurred in recipients of gametes from HIV-positive donors. Since gestational surrogates routinely accept the risks inherent in pregnancy and childbearing, an informed surrogate should be allowed to accept the risks of such an arrangement. They further argued that if no clinic were willing to provide such services, data regarding seroconversion would never be obtained. The university ethics committee examined the fertility clinic's policies and found the clinic's refusal to provide such services to be completely consistent with its policy that allows providing services to HIV-discordant couples, same-sex couples, and gestational surrogates, but that always acts to protect the surrogate from exposure to infectious risk.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":76028,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of the American Medical Women's Association (1972)\",\"volume\":\"58 3\",\"pages\":\"138-40\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2003-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of the American Medical Women's Association (1972)\",\"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":"Journal of the American Medical Women's Association (1972)","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

提供辅助生殖技术(ART)的诊所遵循美国生殖医学学会及其伦理委员会制定的一般指导方针,并可在这些指导方针内自由制定自己的政策。这篇文章提出了一个案例,其中一个大学诊所提出了一个新的要求。一对同性男性夫妇,都是人类免疫缺陷病毒(HIV)阳性,要求使用夫妇中的一个精子通过体外受精,卵胞浆内精子注射和胚胎移植在不相关的妊娠代孕中建立妊娠。这对夫妇支持这一计划的理由是,到目前为止,没有记录在案的艾滋病病毒血清转换病例发生在艾滋病病毒阳性捐赠者的配子接受者身上。由于代孕母亲通常会接受怀孕和生育所固有的风险,知情的代孕母亲应该被允许接受这种安排的风险。他们进一步认为,如果没有诊所愿意提供这种服务,就永远无法获得有关血清转换的数据。大学伦理委员会审查了生育诊所的政策,发现诊所拒绝提供此类服务完全符合其允许向艾滋病毒不一致的夫妇,同性夫妇和妊娠代孕者提供服务的政策,但这始终是为了保护代孕者免受感染风险。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Gestational surrogacy for a human immunodeficiency virus seropositive sperm donor: what are the ethics?

Clinics that provide assisted reproductive technology (ART) are guided by general guidelines set forth by the American Society for Reproductive Medicine and its Ethics Committee and are free to set their own policies within those guidelines. This article presents a case in which a university clinic was presented with a novel request. A same-sex male couple, both positive for the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), asked to use one of the couple's sperm to establish a pregnancy in an unrelated gestational surrogate through in vitro fertilization, intracytoplasmic sperm injection, and embryo transfer. The couple's argument in favor of such a plan was that no documented case of HIV seroconversion had so far occurred in recipients of gametes from HIV-positive donors. Since gestational surrogates routinely accept the risks inherent in pregnancy and childbearing, an informed surrogate should be allowed to accept the risks of such an arrangement. They further argued that if no clinic were willing to provide such services, data regarding seroconversion would never be obtained. The university ethics committee examined the fertility clinic's policies and found the clinic's refusal to provide such services to be completely consistent with its policy that allows providing services to HIV-discordant couples, same-sex couples, and gestational surrogates, but that always acts to protect the surrogate from exposure to infectious risk.

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