Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/2440/78390
Citations
Scopus Web of Science® Altmetric
?
?
Type: Journal article
Title: Should there be a female age limit on public funding for Assisted Reproductive Technology? Differing conceptions of justice in resource allocation
Author: Carter, D.
Watt, A.
Braunack-Mayer, A.
Elshaug, A.
Moss, J.
Hiller, J.
Citation: Journal of Bioethical Inquiry, 2013; 10(1):79-91
Publisher: Springer
Issue Date: 2013
ISSN: 1176-7529
1872-4353
Statement of
Responsibility: 
Drew Carter, Amber M. Watt, Annette Braunack-Mayer, Adam G. Elshaug, John R. Moss, Janet E. Hiller, The ASTUTE Health Study Group
Abstract: Should there be a female age limit on public funding for assisted reproductive technology (ART)? The question bears significant economic and sociopolitical implications and has been contentious in many countries. We conceptualise the question as one of justice in resource allocation, using three much-debated substantive principles of justice-the capacity to benefit, personal responsibility, and need-to structure and then explore a complex of arguments. Capacity-to-benefit arguments are not decisive: There are no clear cost-effectiveness grounds to restrict funding to those older women who still bear some capacity to benefit from ART. Personal responsibility arguments are challenged by structural determinants of delayed motherhood. Nor are need arguments decisive: They can speak either for or against a female age limit, depending on the conception of need used. We demonstrate how these principles can differ not only in content but also in the relative importance they are accorded by governments. Wide variation in ART public funding policy might be better understood in this light. We conclude with some inter-country comparison. New Zealand and Swedish policies are uncommonly transparent and thus demonstrate particularly well how the arguments we explore have been put into practice.
Keywords: Reproductive techniques; ethical analysis; distributive justice; health care rationing; health policy; need; capacity to benefit; disinvestment
Rights: © Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2012
RMID: 0020126509
DOI: 10.1007/s11673-012-9415-6
Grant ID: http://purl.org/au-research/grants/nhmrc/565501
Appears in Collections:Public Health publications

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
hdl_78390.pdfAccepted version496.12 kBAdobe PDFView/Open


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.