| Title |
Preserving children’s fertility: two tales about children’s right to an open future and the margins of parental obligations
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy, September 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11019-014-9596-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Daniela Cutas, Kristien Hens |
| Abstract |
The sources, extent and margins of parental obligations in taking decisions regarding their children's medical care are subjects of ongoing debates. Balancing children's immediate welfare with keeping their future open is a delicate task. In this paper, we briefly present two examples of situations in which parents may be confronted with the choice of whether to authorise or demand non-therapeutic interventions on their children for the purpose of fertility preservation. The first example is that of children facing cancer treatment, and the second of children with Klinefelter syndrome. We argue that, whereas decisions of whether to preserve fertility may be prima facie within the limits of parental discretion, the right to an open future does not straightforwardly put parents under an obligation to take actions that would detect or relieve future infertility in their children-and indeed in some cases taking such actions is problematic. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Belgium | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 36 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unspecified | 7 | 19% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 11% |
| Researcher | 3 | 8% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 8% |
| Other | 7 | 19% |
| Unknown | 8 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 10 | 28% |
| Unspecified | 7 | 19% |
| Psychology | 3 | 8% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 6% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 4 | 11% |
| Unknown | 9 | 25% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 08 September 2014.
All research outputs
#19,902,390
of 24,457,696 outputs
Outputs from Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy
#488
of 619 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#175,848
of 243,401 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy
#9
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,457,696 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 619 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.2. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 243,401 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.