↓ Skip to main content

Lesbian shared biological motherhood: the ethics of IVF with reception of oocytes from partner

Overview of attention for article published in Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy, January 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (85th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (69th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
16 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
53 Mendeley
Title
Lesbian shared biological motherhood: the ethics of IVF with reception of oocytes from partner
Published in
Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy, January 2014
DOI 10.1007/s11019-013-9538-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kristin Zeiler, Anna Malmquist

Abstract

In vitro fertilization (IVF) with reception of oocytes from partners (ROPA) allows lesbian mothers to share biological motherhood. The gestational mother receives an egg from her partner who becomes the genetic mother. This article examines the ethics of IVF with ROPA with a focus on the welfare of the woman and the resulting child, on whether ROPA qualifies as a "legitimate" medical therapy that falls within the goals of medicine, and on the meaning and value attributed to a biologically shared bond between parents and child. We also contrast IVF with ROPA with egg donor IVF for heterosexual couples and intrafamilial live uterus transplantation with IVF, and show how Swedish legislation makes certain ways of sharing biological bonds out of place. In Sweden, IVF with ROPA is illegal, egg donor IVF for heterosexual couples is allowed and practiced as is sperm donor IVF for lesbians, and live uterus transplantation is performed within a research project (though not allowed in regular health care). But is ROPA really ethically more problematic than these other cases? The article argues that IVF with ROPA gives rise to fewer ethical questions than does live uterus transplantation with IVF and, in some cases, egg donor IVF.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 16 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 53 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 4%
Canada 1 2%
Unknown 50 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 15%
Student > Master 8 15%
Student > Bachelor 6 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 8%
Librarian 3 6%
Other 11 21%
Unknown 13 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 21%
Social Sciences 10 19%
Psychology 7 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 8%
Philosophy 3 6%
Other 3 6%
Unknown 15 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 10 October 2017.
All research outputs
#3,938,980
of 24,359,979 outputs
Outputs from Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy
#108
of 620 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#44,910
of 314,695 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy
#5
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,359,979 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 620 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 314,695 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.