GESTIÓN EN SALUD PÚBLICA: BioEdge: Chinese clinics advertise for sperm donors

domingo, 19 de junio de 2016

BioEdge: Chinese clinics advertise for sperm donors

BioEdge: Chinese clinics advertise for sperm donors

Bioedge

Chinese clinics advertise for sperm donors

by Michael Cook | 18 Jun 2016 |

Chinese IVF centres are offering better and bigger rewards as they are failing to recruit enough sperm donors. According to the New York Times, men between 20 and 45 are being offered as much as US$1000 and deluxe iPhones for their contributions.

After decades of a one-child policy, China faces a demographic crisis, with an ageing population and a contracting workforce. Couples are now legally able to have a second child, but many of them have fertility problems. Ironically, it seems, China does not have enough people. The Times observes that clinics are trying all sorts of strategies:

Some sperm banks have tried to appeal to feelings of patriotism, as China grapples with an aging population and a diminishing work force. “Show your compassion,” an article on a state-run news site urged men this year. “Help mitigate the country’s aging problem.”

Appeals to civic pride and altruism have not helped either:

Recent ads have tried to counter those deep-seated attitudes. “Donating sperm and donating blood are the same thing,” said one message from a Beijing sperm bank. “It’s all about giving back to society.”

There are many reasons for the shortage, according to a 2011 study in a Chinese journal. Culturally, men are reluctant because they fear losing their virility. Medically, nearly half of donor applicants are disqualified because they have a sexually-transmitted disease. Furthermore, China limits the number of pregnancies for each donor to 5. In the US, the recommended limit is 25 and in the UK 10. Therefore, more donors are needed than in Western countries in proportion to the population.

- See more at: http://www.bioedge.org/bioethics/chinese-clinics-advertise-for-sperm-donors/11925#sthash.BnnuywQS.dpuf

Bioedge

I have no love for Donald Trump, but it does seem unfair that only he is being accused of being crazy in this year’s election for president. It is a truth universally acknowledged that any man (or woman) who hankers after high public office must be in need of a psychiatrist. In 2013 psychologists published an article asserting that most recent presidents have suffered from “grandiose narcissism, which comprises immodesty, boastfulness and interpersonal dominance”. Remember that Hillary Clinton has been accused of all these failings, not just Trump. Perhaps they are crafty, not crazy.

That’s why the Goldwater Rule is a good thing. As Xavier Symons mentions below, this is an informal rule of medical ethics for psychologists and psychiatrists which bans them from commenting on the mental state and stability of public figures. It’s very rash to predict that psychological flaws disqualify a person from holding public office. Winston Churchill was depressive and an alcoholic and became the most admired statesman of the 20th century. Abraham Lincoln probably suffered from depression but is the most revered of all American presidents. Mr Trump may be unsuited to the job of president, but I’d prefer to make up my own mind on the subject without airy speculation from psychiatrists who have never spoken to the man himself.