Money-back guarantees for IVF: an ethical critique.
Money-back guarantees for IVF: an ethical critique.
复制标题
IVF 退款保证：道德批评。
DOI：
10.1111/j.1748-720x.1997.tb01411.x
复制
发表时间：
1997
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Murray,TH
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Murray,TH
当不孕不育诊所提供退款保证时，他们更喜欢给他们更微妙的名字，如“分担风险”，“保修”或“结果”计划。我们不应该让这些精致的东西分散我们对这些项目的关注，这些项目都是关于底线的，约翰·罗伯逊和西奥多·施奈尔为这些项目辩护，称之为特殊形式的保险，他们称之为“失败风险保险”。他们认为，在“体外受精的专业自我调节和风险分担计划”中，美国医学协会（AMA）和其他人对体外受精（IVF）风险分担计划的批评是不恰当的。Robertson和Schneyer认为，制定知情同意的指导方针或阻止危险临床程序的协议就足够了。他们承认，共同风险计划“如果没有充分披露和关注病人的利益，就会出现问题”，但他们坚持认为，“没有理由不能以合乎道德的方式实施”。
When infertility clinics offer money-back guarantees, they prefer to give them more delicate names such as “shared risk,” “warranty,” or “outcome” programs. We should not allow such daintiness to distract us from the bottom line of these programs which are all about the bottom line.John Robertson and Theodore Schneyer defend such programs as special forms of insurance, what they call “risk-of-failure insurance.” They argue, in “Professional Self-Regulation and Shared-Risk Programs for In Vitro Fertilization,” that the criticisms of in vitro fertilization (IVF) shared-risk programs by the American Medical Association (AMA) and others are off the mark. It would be sufficient, Robertson and Schneyer contend, to develop guidelines for informed consent or protocols that discourage risky clinical procedures. They acknowledge that shared risk plans “present problems if not offered with full disclosure and attention to patient interests,” but they insist that “there is no reason why they cannot be implemented in an ethically sound way.”