Peterson M M
Philosophy Department, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.
J Med Ethics. 2005 May;31(5):280-5. doi: 10.1136/jme.2003.007542.
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.
在澳大利亚和其他国家,某些女性群体传统上被拒绝使用辅助生殖技术(ARTs)。这些群体通常包括单身异性恋女性、女同性恋者、贫困女性以及那些抚养子女能力受到质疑的女性,特别是有某些残疾的女性或年龄较大的女性。用于为选择接受ARTs的女性进行辩护的论据通常基于资源稀缺、(女同性恋者和单身女性)不存在不孕问题等问题,或者基于社会担忧:即这“违背自然”;特定女性可能不是好母亲;非传统家庭在社会上不被接受;或者年龄较大母亲的孩子可能早年成为孤儿。本综述探讨了传统上导致在获取ARTs方面缺乏公平性的社会、医学、法律和伦理推理,以及在任何特定情况下用于取消客户资格的标准在伦理上是否合适。此外,还研究了与这些敏感医疗服务相关的分配问题和公正的“把关”做法。