sábado, 20 de mayo de 2017

BioEdge: Do donor children benefit from knowing their origins? | BioEdge | Saturday, May 20, 2017 |

BioEdge: Do donor children benefit from knowing their origins?

| BioEdge | Saturday, May 20, 2017 |

Do donor children benefit from knowing their origins?
Folk wisdom, world literature and common sense suggest that donor-children benefit from knowing their biological origins.

Yet a recent article in the journal Human Reproduction claims that there is no significant psychological difference between children who know they are donor-conceived and those who do not.

University of Ghent bioethicist Guido Pennings – who adamantly opposes retrospective changes to donor law – conducted a systematic review of empirical studies on the well-being of donor offspring. He argues that there is “no empirical evidence of differences in psychological well-being of donor offspring in disclosing or non-disclosing families”.

Pennings reviewed several studies conducted in the past two decades into disclosure among pre-adolescents and adolescents. The data, he says, shows “no negative consequences in the parent-child relationship or child development because of nondisclosure of the child’s donor origin”. On the contrary, certain studies suggest that “children who were told and whose mothers were distressed showed greater adjustment difficulties”.

Pennings also reviews data about the age at which children are told, arguing that there is no strong evidence to suggest that the age of disclosure makes a difference to the psychological well-being of donor-offspring. The studies which do suggest a difference are based on biased sample studies or only show negligible variations in the impacts of delayed disclosure. Or so it is argued.

In a blog post, Pennings suggests that counsellors and psychologists rely more on moralistic claims than empirical evidence when they suggest early disclosure to parents of donor-children: “When [moral] beliefs are expressed and pushed upon people during counselling, this is an outright violation of the non-directiveness rule that stipulates that the moral values and views of the patients (parents and would-be parents) must be respected.”

Pennings remarks garnered several highly critical comments. 

Saturday, May 20, 2017

The Economist is the world’s best news magazine. Its stylish, intelligent and well-informed coverage has made it the Bible of the global elite. “I used to think. Now I just read The Economist,” the former CEO of Oracle, Larry Ellison, once said.
Part of its appeal is its ideological consistency. Ever since 1843 The Economist has argued that aim of public policy should be to promote the market economy as the best way of achieving prosperity and democracy. A light touch of government regulation is needed only to ensure fairness and legal certainty. Thus it embodies the “classical 19th-century Liberal ideas” which made Britain, and later the United States, a bulwark of capitalism.
Whatever the merits of this ideology in framing public policy for economics and finance, it is ill-suited to questions of personal behaviour.
In principle The Economist supports all autonomous action which is either harmless (in its view) or profitable. Hence, in recent years it has thrown its considerable prestige behind campaigns for the legalisation and regulation of drugs, pornography, prostitution, euthanasia, and same-sex marriage.
And this month it has taken up cudgels in favour of an international market in surrogate mothers and babies. “Carrying a child for someone else should be celebrated—and paid”, is the defiant headline of its editorial. Given the magazine’s influence, this is a significant development. What do you think of it? 

Michael Cook


by Michael Cook | May 19, 2017
But neglects an ethical analysis

by Michael Cook | May 19, 2017
Flushing the fallopian tubes has been very successful

by Michael Cook | May 19, 2017
It could be a dangerous social experiment

by Michael Cook | May 19, 2017
Ian Brady, the Moors murderer, died a natural death this week

by Michael Cook | May 19, 2017
But he died in April so potential children are suing to access DNA material

by Xavier Symons | May 19, 2017
Doctors worry about conscientious objection

by Xavier Symons | May 19, 2017
Mexico City policy will cover international health programs as well

by Xavier Symons | May 19, 2017
A Belgian bioethicist says No

by Michael Cook | May 19, 2017
Collateral damage is not such a big deal, says Henry Marsh

by Michael Cook | May 19, 2017
"We will never go back to those shameful times"
Suite 12A, Level 2 | 5 George St | North Strathfield NSW 2137 | Australia
Phone: +61 2 8005 8605
Mobile: 0422-691-615

No hay comentarios: