Barnets bästa vid assisterad befruktning
- bedömning av föräldrapotential vid behandling med och utan donerade könsceller
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.3384/SVT.2023.30.2.4442Nyckelord:
assisted reproduction, child welfare assessment, parenting capacity, parent potential, regulation of accessAbstract
The best interests of the child in assisted reproduction – assessments of parent potential in treatment with autologous and donor gametes
Considerations of the welfare of the intended child in assisted reproduction include the assessment of candidates’ capacity to care for the child. Swedish legislation prescribes the evaluation of candidates’ psychological and social circumstances only when gametes from a donor are used for treatment. However, accounts of the evaluation process by fertility clinic staff indicate that candidates’ social and psychological circumstances are also considered in non-donor treatment. While legislation demands that a professional behavioural scientist is involved in the assessment for donor treatment, this is not the case for non-donor treatment. Candidates for non-donor treatment are reported as being evaluated by a counsellor only if they attract the negative attention of clinic staff through self-disclosed information or their behaviour during visits to the clinic. The outcome is an evaluation process in non-donor treatment that is non-transparent and therefore unpredictable for candidates. This article is based on focus group discussions with fertility clinic staff at four public clinics in Sweden.
Nedladdningar
Referenser
Baylis, F. & McLeod, C. (2014). Family-making: contemporary ethical challenges. Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199656066.001.0001
Black, J., (2002). Regulatory conversations. Journal of Law & Society 29 (1), 163–196. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6478.00215. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6478.00215
Blyth, E., Burr, V., Farrand, A. (2008). Welfare of the child assessments in assisted conception: a social constructionist perspective. Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psychology, 26(1), 31–43. https://doi.org/10.1080/02646830701691301. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02646830701691301
Braverman, A. M. (2015). Mental health counseling in third-party reproduction in the United States: evaluation, psychoeducation, or ethical gatekeeping? Fertility and Sterility. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2015.06.023. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2015.06.023
Braun, V. & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Brown, R. C. H. (2019). Irresponsibly infertile: obesity, efficiency, and exclusion from treatment. Health care Analysis, 27, 61–76. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10728-019-00366-w. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10728-019-00366-w
Daar, J. (2017). The new eugenics: selective breeding in an era of reproductive technologies. Yale University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.12987/yale/9780300137156.001.0001
Dahlqvist, A. (2021, 26 januari). Linda och Martin nekas IVF för att de har boendestöd. Ottar. Hämtad 10 augusti 2022 från: https://www.ottar.se/artiklar/linda-och-martin-nekas-ivf-f-r-att-de-har-boendest-d
Daniels, K. R., Blyth, E., Hall, D. & Hanson, K. M. (2000). The best interests of the child in assisted human reproduction: the interplay between the state, professionals and parents. Politics and the Life Sciences, 19(1), 33–44. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4236561. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0730938400008881
Davis, D-A. (2020). Reproducing while black: the crisis of black maternal health, obstetric racism and assisted reproductive technology. Reproductive BioMedicine and Society Online, 11, 56–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbms.2020.10.001 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbms.2020.10.001
De Lacey, S. L., Peterson, K. & McMillan, J. (2015). Child interests in assisted reproductive technology: how is the welfare principle applied in practice? Human Reproduction. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/deu343. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/deu343
Diekema, D. S. (2004). Parental refusals of medical treatment: the harm principle as threshold for state intervention. Theoretical Medicine & Bioethics, 25, 243–264. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11017-004-3146-6
Ehrich, K., Williams, C., Scott, R., Sandall, J. & Farsides, B. (2006). Social welfare, genetic welfare? Boundary-work in the IVF/PGD clinic.
Social Science and Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2006.03.005. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2006.03.005
Elenis, E., Skoog Svanberg, A., Leandersson, P., Lind, J. & Sydsjö, G. (2020), Access to infertility evaluation and treatment in two public fertility clinics and the reasons for withholding it: a prospective survey cohort study of healthcare professionals, BMJ Open, 10(12), e041538. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-041538. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-041538
ESHRE Task Force on Ethics and Law (2007). ESHRE Task Force on Ethics and Law 13: the welfare of the child in medically assisted reproduction. Human Reproduction, 22(10), 2585–2588. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dem237. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dem237
Gillett, W. R., Peek, J. C. & Herbison, G. P. (2012). Development of clinical priority access criteria for assisted reproduction and its evaluation on 1 386 infertile couples in New Zealand. Human Reproduction. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/der372. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/der372
Gurmankin, A. D., Caplan, A. L. & Braverman, A. L. (2005). Screening practices and beliefs of assisted reproductive technology programs. Fertility and Sterility ,83(1), 61–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2004.06.048. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2004.06.048
Heyd, D. (1992) Genetics: moral issues in the creation of people. University of California Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1525/9780520313484
Kanckos, L. (2012). Barnets bästa i politikens främsta rum: Finlands riksdags debatt om assisterad befruktning. (Diss.). Åbo Akademi.
Jackson, E. (2002) Conception and the irrelevance of the welfare principle. Medical Law Review, 65(2), 176–203. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468–2230.00374. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2230.00374
Jonsson Malm, C. (2011). Att plantera ett barn: internationella adoptioner och assisterad befruktning i svensk reproduktionspolitik. (Diss.). Lunds universitet.
Lee, E., Macvarish, J. & Sheldon, S. (2014). Assessing child welfare under the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008: a case study in medicalization? Sociology of Health and Illness, 36(4), 500–515. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9566.12078. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9566.12078
Lie, M. & Lykke, N. (2017). Assisted reproduction across borders: feminist perspectives on normalizations, disruptions and transmissions. Routledge. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315561219
Liljestrand, P. (1995). Legitimate state and illegitimate parents: donor insemination politics in Sweden. Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, 2(3), 270–304. https://doi.org/10.1093/sp/2.3.270. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/sp/2.3.270
Lind, J. (2019). The rights of intended children: the best interests of the child argument in assisted reproduction policy. Childhood, 26(3), 352–368. https://doi.org/10.1177/0907568219853331. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0907568219853331
Lind, J. (2020). Child welfare assessments and the regulation of access to publicly funded fertility treatment. Reproductive Biomedicine & Society, 10, 19–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbms.2020.01.003. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbms.2020.01.003
Lind, J. (2021). Assessment of parental potential: socio-economic risk factors and children’s well-being. I: A-M. Castrén, V. Cesnuityte, I. Crespi, J-A. Gauthier, R. Gouveia, C. Martin, A. Moreno Minguez & K. Suwada (red.), The Palgrave handbook of family sociology in Europe. Palgrave Macmillan.
Melhuus, M. (2012). Problems of conception: issues of law, biotechnology, individuals and kinship. Berghahn Books.
Pennings, G. (1999). The welfare of the child: measuring the welfare of the child: in search of the appropriate evaluation principle. Human Reproduction. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/14.5.1146. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/14.5.1146
Proposition 2017/18:155 Modernare regler om assisterad befruktning och föräldraskap.
Quigley, M. (2010). A right to reproduce? Bioethics, 24(8), 403–411. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8519.2008.00722.x. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8519.2008.00722.x
Roberts, D. (2009). Race, gender, and genetic technologies: a new reproductive dystopia? Signs, 34(4), 783–804. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/597132
Robertson, J. (1994). Children of choice: freedom and the new reproductive technologies. Princeton University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400821204
SFS 2006:351. Lag om genetisk integritet m.m.
SOU 2016:11 Olika vägar till föräldraskap.
Shanley, M. L. (2001). Making babies, making families: what matters most in an age of reproductive technologies, surrogacy, adoption and same-sex unwed parents’ rights. Beacon Press.
Sheldon, S., Lee, E. & Macvarish, J. (2015). “Supportive parenting”, responsibility and regulation: the welfare assessment under the reformed Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act (1990). Modern Law Review, 78(3), 461–492. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2230.12124. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2230.12124
Singer, A. (2006). Mater semper certa est’? Juridisk Tidskrift, 18(2), 424–431.
SKR (2020). Rekommendation om enhetlighet i regionernas erbjudande av offentligt finansierad assisterad befruktning. Hämtad 10 augusti 2022 från: https://skr.se/download/18.32563d7d1784aa279ecac6bb/1618304676440/Rekommendation-assisterad%20befruktning-ver2-nov2020.pdf
SMER (2013). Assisterad befruktning: etiska aspekter. Smer-rapport 2013:1. Hämtad 10 augusti 2022 från: https://www.smer.se/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Smer_rapport_2013_1_webb.pdf
Socialstyrelsen (2016). Assisterad befruktning med donerade könsceller: nationellt kunskapsstöd.
Solberg B. (2009). Getting beyond the welfare of the child in assisted reproduction. Journal of Medical Ethics, 35(6), 373–376. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/jme.2008.028126
SOSFS 2009:32. Socialstyrelsens föreskrifter och allmänna råd om användning av vävnader och celler i hälso- och sjukvården och vid klinisk forskning m.m. Hämtad 10 augusti 2022 från: https://www.socialstyrelsen.se/kunskapsstod-och-regler/regler-och-riktlinjer/foreskrifter-och-allmanna-rad/konsoliderade-foreskrifter/200932-om-anvandning-av-vavnader-och-celler-i-halso--och-sjukvarden-och-vid-klinisk-forskning/
Steinbock, B. (1995). A philosopher looks at assisted reproduction. Journal of Assisted Reproduction Genetics ,12, 543–551. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02212918
Stern, J.E., Cramer, C.P., Garrod, A., Green, R.M., 2002. Attitudes on access to services at assisted reproductive technology clinics: comparisons with clinic policy. Fertility & Sterility 77 (3), 537–541. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0015-0282(01)03208-3. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0015-0282(01)03208-3
Thompson, K. & McDougall, R. (2014). Restricting access to ART on the basis of criminal record: an ethical analysis of a state-enforced “Presumption against treatment” with regard to assisted reproductive technologies. Bioethical Inquiry. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-015-9622-z. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-015-9622-z
Thorpe, R., Croy, S., Petersen, K. & Pitts, M. (2012). In the best interests of the child? Regulating assisted reproductive technologies and the well-being of offspring in three Australian states. International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family, 26(3), 259–277. https://doi.org/10.1093/lawfam/ebs012. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/lawfam/ebs012
Tinnerholm Ljungberg, H. (2015). Omöjliga familjen: ideologi och fantasi i svensk reproduktionspolitik. (Diss.). Stockholms universitet. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7146/kkf.v0i1-2.28499
Van Keppel, M. & Yovich, J. L. (2020). Best interests of the future child in ART: not well served by legislation. GSC Biological and Pharmaceutical Sciences, 11(03), 189–196. https://doi.org/10.30574/gscbps.2020.11.3.0172 DOI: https://doi.org/10.30574/gscbps.2020.11.3.0172
White, S. & Stancombe, J. (2003). Clinical judgement in the health and welfare professions: extending the evidence base. Open University Press.
Whittaker, A. (2018). How do child-protection practitioners make decisions in real-life situations? Lessons from the psychology of decision making. The British Journal of Social Work, 48(7), 1967–1984. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcx145 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcx145
Widdows, H. & MacCallum, F. (2002). Disparities in parenting criteria: an exploration of the issues, focusing on adoption and embryo donation. Journal of Medical Ethics, 28, 139–142. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/jme.28.3.139
Wirzén, M. & Lindgren, C. (2020), “It shouldn’t just be these kinds of sunshine stories”: social workers’ discussion of “past difficulties” as a key theme in adoption assessment interviews. European Journal of Social Work. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691457.2019.1709160. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13691457.2019.1709160
Downloads
Publicerad
Referera så här
Nummer
Sektion
Licens
Copyright (c) 2023 Judith Lind
Det här verket är licensierat under en Creative Commons Erkännande 4.0 Internationell-licens.
Allt material i Socialvetenskaplig tidskrift publiceras sedan 2022 (Vol 28 Nr 2) med omedelbar öppen tillgång (open access), under Creative Commons-licensen CC BY 4.0. Upphovsrätten till innehållet tillhör respektive författare.
Allt innehåll i tidskriften är fritt tillgängligt utan kostnad och får fritt läsas, laddas ned, kopieras, delas, skrivas ut och länkas. När innehållet används måste författare, källa och licens anges. Författaren kan fritt göra sin publicerade text tillgänglig på institutionella och internetbaserade arkiv, exempelvis sitt lärosätes digitala arkiv eller andra tjänster för detta.
Inga publiceringsavgifter tas ut vid publicering i Socialvetenskaplig tidskrift.
