Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/2440/78390
Citations
Scopus Web of Science® Altmetric
?
?
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorCarter, D.en
dc.contributor.authorWatt, A.en
dc.contributor.authorBraunack-Mayer, A.en
dc.contributor.authorElshaug, A.en
dc.contributor.authorMoss, J.en
dc.contributor.authorHiller, J.en
dc.date.issued2013en
dc.identifier.citationJournal of Bioethical Inquiry, 2013; 10(1):79-91en
dc.identifier.issn1176-7529en
dc.identifier.issn1872-4353en
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/2440/78390-
dc.description.abstractShould 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.en
dc.description.statementofresponsibilityDrew Carter, Amber M. Watt, Annette Braunack-Mayer, Adam G. Elshaug, John R. Moss, Janet E. Hiller, The ASTUTE Health Study Groupen
dc.language.isoenen
dc.publisherSpringeren
dc.rights© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2012en
dc.subjectReproductive techniques; ethical analysis; distributive justice; health care rationing; health policy; need; capacity to benefit; disinvestmenten
dc.titleShould there be a female age limit on public funding for Assisted Reproductive Technology? Differing conceptions of justice in resource allocationen
dc.typeJournal articleen
dc.identifier.rmid0020126509en
dc.identifier.doi10.1007/s11673-012-9415-6en
dc.relation.granthttp://purl.org/au-research/grants/nhmrc/565501en
dc.identifier.pubid20657-
pubs.library.collectionPublic Health publicationsen
pubs.verification-statusVerifieden
pubs.publication-statusPublisheden
dc.identifier.orcidCarter, D. [0000-0002-1221-6656]en
dc.identifier.orcidBraunack-Mayer, A. [0000-0003-4427-0224]en
dc.identifier.orcidElshaug, A. [0000-0002-4939-5379]en
dc.identifier.orcidHiller, J. [0000-0002-8532-4033]en
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.