• myGriffith
    • Staff portal
    • Contact Us⌄
      • Future student enquiries 1800 677 728
      • Current student enquiries 1800 154 055
      • International enquiries +61 7 3735 6425
      • General enquiries 07 3735 7111
      • Online enquiries
      • Staff phonebook
    View Item 
    •   Home
    • Griffith Research Online
    • Journal articles
    • View Item
    • Home
    • Griffith Research Online
    • Journal articles
    • View Item
    JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

    Browse

  • All of Griffith Research Online
    • Communities & Collections
    • Authors
    • By Issue Date
    • Titles
  • This Collection
    • Authors
    • By Issue Date
    • Titles
  • Statistics

  • Most Popular Items
  • Statistics by Country
  • Most Popular Authors
  • Support

  • Contact us
  • FAQs
  • Admin login

  • Login
  • Assisted reproductive technologies and equity of access issues

    Thumbnail
    View/Open
    43906_1.pdf (93.56Kb)
    Author(s)
    Peterson, M
    Griffith University Author(s)
    Peterson, Madelyn
    Year published
    2005
    Metadata
    Show full item record
    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 ...
    View more >
    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.
    View less >
    Journal Title
    Journal of Medical Ethics
    Volume
    31
    Issue
    5
    Publisher URI
    http://jme.bmj.com/
    DOI
    https://doi.org/10.1136/jme.2003.007542
    Copyright Statement
    © The Author(s) 2005 . This is the author-manuscript version of this paper. It is posted here with permission of the copyright owners for your personal use only. No further distribution permitted. For information about this journal please refer to the publisher's website or contact the authors.
    Subject
    Other Medical and Health Sciences
    Law
    Applied Ethics
    Publication URI
    http://hdl.handle.net/10072/24835
    Collection
    • Journal articles

    Footer

    Disclaimer

    • Privacy policy
    • Copyright matters
    • CRICOS Provider - 00233E
    • TEQSA: PRV12076

    Tagline

    • Gold Coast
    • Logan
    • Brisbane - Queensland, Australia
    First Peoples of Australia
    • Aboriginal
    • Torres Strait Islander