| Title |
Reproductive Ethics in Commercial Surrogacy: Decision-Making in IVF Clinics in New Delhi, India
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Bioethical Inquiry, July 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11673-015-9642-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Malene Tanderup, Sunita Reddy, Tulsi Patel, Birgitte Bruun Nielsen |
| Abstract |
As a neo-liberal economy, India has become one of the new health tourism destinations, with commercial gestational surrogacy as an expanding market. Yet the Indian Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) Bill has been pending for five years, and the guidelines issued by the Indian Council of Medical Research are somewhat vague and contradictory, resulting in self-regulated practices of fertility clinics. This paper broadly looks at clinical ethics in reproduction in the practice of surrogacy and decision-making in various procedures. Through empirical research in New Delhi, the capital of India, from December 2011 to November 2012, issues of decision-making on embryo transfer, fetal reduction, and mode of delivery were identified. Interviews were carried out with doctors in eighteen ART clinics, agents from four agencies, and fourteen surrogates. In aiming to fulfil the commissioning parents' demands, doctors were willing to go to the greatest extent possible in their medical practice. Autonomy and decision-making regarding choice of the number of embryos to transfer and the mode of delivery lay neither with commissioning parents nor surrogate mothers but mostly with doctors. In order to ensure higher success rates, surrogates faced the risk of multiple pregnancy and fetal reduction with little information regarding the risks involved. In the globalized market of commercial surrogacy in India, and with clinics compromising on ethics, there is an urgent need for formulation of regulative law for the clinical practice and maintenance of principles of reproductive ethics in order to ensure that the interests of surrogate mothers are safeguarded. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 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 89 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 89 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 13 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 13 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 9 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 6% |
| Other | 11 | 12% |
| Unknown | 29 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 12 | 13% |
| Social Sciences | 11 | 12% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 5 | 6% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 6% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 4 | 4% |
| Other | 18 | 20% |
| Unknown | 34 | 38% |
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 03 June 2016.
All research outputs
#15,377,214
of 22,876,619 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Bioethical Inquiry
#438
of 601 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#154,038
of 263,475 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Bioethical Inquiry
#8
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,876,619 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 601 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.1. 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 263,475 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
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 is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.