Fertility and Sterility
Volume 83, Issue 1 , Pages 61-67 , January 2005

Screening practices and beliefs of assisted reproductive technology programs

  • Andrea D. Gurmankin, Ph.D., M.Be.

      Affiliations

    • Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts
    • Corresponding Author InformationReprint requests: Andrea D. Gurmankin, Ph.D., Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, 44 Binney Street, Smith 253, Boston, MA 02115
    • ,
  • Arthur L. Caplan, Ph.D.

      Affiliations

    • Department of Medical Ethics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
    • ,
  • Andrea M. Braverman, Ph.D.

      Affiliations

    • Thomas Jefferson University Hospital and Pennsylvania Reproductive Associates, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Received 24 June 2003 ,Revised 4 June 2004 ,Accepted 4 June 2004.

References 

  1. American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Frequently asked questions about infertility . http://www.asrm.org/Patients/faqs.html . Accessed July 2002
  2. Centers for Disease Control. ART trends: 1996-2000 . http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/drh/ART00/sect6_fig41-43.htm#Figure%2041 . Accessed February 2003
  3. Roe v Wade. Supreme Court of the U.S. 1973 410 U.S. 113, 93 S.Ct. 705, 35 L.Ed.2d. 147.
  4. Griswold v Connecticut. 381 U.S. 479, 85 S.Ct. 1678, 14 L.Ed.2d 510 (1965).
  5. Gorney C . Articles of faith: a frontline history of the abortion wars . New York: Simon and Schuster; 1998;
  6. Kevles DJ . In the name of eugenics . Berkeley, CA: University of California Press; 1986;
  7. Reilly PR . The surgical solution . Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press; 1991;
  8. Parens E , Knowles LP . Reprogenetics and public policy . Hastings Center Rep . 2003;33:S1–24
  9. Baird P . Individual interests, societal interests and reproductive technologies . Perspect Biol Med . 1997;40:440–451
  10. Overall C . Ethics and human reproduction . New York: Routledge, Chapman and Hall; 1987;
  11. Robertson JA . Regulation of assisted reproduction: the need for flexibility . Hum Reprod . 1997;12:7–8
  12. Humphrey M , Humphrey H , Ainsworth-Smith I . Screening by couples for parenthood by donor insemination . Soc Sci Med . 1991;32:273–278
  13. Leiblum SR , Williams E . Screening in or out of the new reproductive options: who decides and why . J Psychosom Obstet Gynaecol . 1993;14(Spec Iss):37–44
  14. McClain C. Who's ‘fit’ to become a mother? Local doctor defends inseminating jobless, disabled woman artificially. Arizona Daily Star; February 14, 2001: A1.
  15. Robertson JA . Children of choice: freedom and the new reproductive technologies . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; 1994;
  16. The New York State Task Force on Life and the Law . Assisted reproductive technologies: analysis and recommendations for public policy . Albany, NY: Health Education Services; 1998;
  17. Stern JE , Cramer CP , Garrod A , Green RM . Access to services at assisted reproductive technology clinics: a survey of policies and practice . Am J Obstet Gynecol . 2001;184:591–597
  18. Society for Assisted Reproductive Technologies . http://sart.org/find.html “Find a clinic”. Accessed July 2001
  19. Fiscus S, Adimora AA, Schoenbach VJ, Wilfert C, Johnson VA. Can zidovudine monotherapy continue to reduce perinatal HIV transmission: the North Carolina experience 1993–1997. Abstract 33162, presented at the XII World AIDS Conference; Geneva, Switzerland; July 29–July 3, 1998.
  20. Watts DH . Management of human immunodeficiency virus infection in pregnancy . N Engl J Med . 2002;346:1879–1891
  21. Lallemant M , Jourdain G , Le Coeur S , Kim S , Koetsawang S , Comeau AM , et al.  A trial of shortened zidovudine regimens to prevent mother-to-child transmission of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 . N Engl J Med . 2000;343:982–991
  22. Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. Code of practice, 5th edition . http://www.hfea.gov.uk/HFEAPublications/CodeofPractice . Accessed December 2003
  23. Deech R . Assisted reproductive techniques and the law . Medicolegal J . 2000;69:13–24
  24. Cohen C . Unmanaged care: the need to regulate new reproductive technologies in the United States . Bioethics . 1997;1:348–365

 This study was supported by the University of Pennsylvania Center for Bioethics gift fund.

 Andrea D. Gurmankin has full access to all the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

PII: S0015-0282(04)02600-7

doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2004.06.048

Fertility and Sterility
Volume 83, Issue 1 , Pages 61-67 , January 2005

Article Tools