Department of Chemical Pathology, Reproductive and Molecular Endocrinology Unit, College of Health Sciences, Ladoke Akintola University of Technology, Osogbo, Osun State, Nigeria;
Int J Womens Health. 2011;3:265-75. doi: 10.2147/IJWH.S20501. Epub 2011 Aug 11.
Infertility has recently been construed to be a serious problem in sub-Saharan Africa. This problem seems to be viewed as of low priority with reference to the effective and efficient allocation of available health resources by national governments as well as by international donors sponsoring either research or service delivery in the public health sector. In this paper the problem of infertility in Nigeria is surveyed with a view to assessing the ethical dimension of proposals to manage infertility as a public sector priority in health care delivery. The population/individual and public/private distinction in the formulation of health policy has ethical implications that cannot simply be ignored and are therefore engaged in critically assessing the problem of infertility. Cost-utility analysis (such as Quality Adjusted Life-Year composite index) in the management of infertility in Nigeria entails the need for caution relevant to the country's efforts to achieve Millennium Development Goals. This should remain the case whether the ethical evaluation appeals to utilitarian or contractarian (Rawlsian) principles. The "worst off " category of Nigerians includes (1) underweight children less than 5 years of age, with special concern for infants (0-1 years of age) and (2) the proportion of the population below a minimum level of dietary consumption. The Rawlsian ethic implies that any Federal Ministry of Health policy aimed at establishing public programs for infertility management can be considered a "fair" allocation and expenditure if, and only if, the situation for these two cohorts is not thereby made worse. Nigerian health policy cannot assume this type of increased allocation of its resources to infertility care without it being hard pressed to warrant defensible moral or rational argument.
不孕症最近在撒哈拉以南非洲被认为是一个严重的问题。这个问题似乎被认为是国家政府和国际捐助者在有效和高效分配现有卫生资源方面的低优先级问题,这些捐助者要么赞助公共卫生部门的研究,要么赞助服务提供。本文调查了尼日利亚的不孕症问题,旨在评估将不孕症作为医疗保健提供的公共部门优先事项进行管理的提议的伦理维度。在制定卫生政策时,人口/个人与公共/私人之间的区别具有伦理含义,不能简单地忽视,因此需要批判性地评估不孕症问题。在尼日利亚管理不孕症方面的成本效益分析(如质量调整生命年综合指数)需要谨慎,这与该国实现千年发展目标的努力有关。无论伦理评估是诉诸功利主义还是契约论(罗尔斯式)原则,都是如此。尼日利亚最贫困的群体包括:(1)体重不足的 5 岁以下儿童,特别是关注婴儿(0-1 岁);(2)低于最低饮食消费水平的人口比例。罗尔斯式伦理意味着,如果这两个群体的情况没有因此恶化,那么任何旨在为不孕症管理建立公共项目的联邦卫生部政策都可以被视为“公平”的分配和支出。如果尼日利亚卫生政策不将其资源向不孕症护理方面进行这种类型的增加分配,那么就很难证明其具有合理的道德或理性论据。