↓ Skip to main content

Narrative Identity in Third Party Reproduction: Normative Aspects and Ethical Challenges

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Bioethical Inquiry, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
22 Mendeley
Title
Narrative Identity in Third Party Reproduction: Normative Aspects and Ethical Challenges
Published in
Journal of Bioethical Inquiry, December 2017
DOI 10.1007/s11673-017-9823-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Natacha Salomé Lima

Abstract

In the last few decades, assisted reproduction has introduced new challenges to the way people conceive and build their families. While the numbers of donor-conceived (DC) individuals have increased worldwide, there are still many controversies concerning access to donor information. Is there a fundamental moral right to know one's genetic background? What does identity in DC families mean? Is there any relationship between identity formation and disclosure of genetic origins? These questions are addressed by analysing core regulatory discourse (ethical recommendations and codes of practice). This analysis shows that the notion of narrative identity is suitable for defining and answering these questions. This review analyses the meaning of resemblance in DC families and the way donors are selected following affinity-ties and discusses disclosure strategies and agreements. As a preliminary conclusion, it could be said that, in the field of third-party reproduction, knowing about the donor conception significantly contributes towards the development of a narrative identity and also serves as a moral basis for the child's right to know.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 22 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 22 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 5 23%
Researcher 4 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 18%
Student > Bachelor 2 9%
Student > Postgraduate 2 9%
Other 1 5%
Unknown 4 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 32%
Psychology 4 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 9%
Social Sciences 2 9%
Arts and Humanities 1 5%
Other 3 14%
Unknown 3 14%
Attention Score in Context

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 16 April 2018.
All research outputs
#15,505,836
of 23,043,346 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Bioethical Inquiry
#437
of 600 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#266,626
of 439,241 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Bioethical Inquiry
#17
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,043,346 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 600 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% 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 439,241 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.