Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > Should uterus transplants be publicly funded?

Electronic data

Links

Text available via DOI:

View graph of relations

Should uterus transplants be publicly funded?

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal article

Published

Standard

Should uterus transplants be publicly funded? / Wilkinson, Stephen; Williams, Nicola.

In: Journal of Medical Ethics, Vol. 42, No. 9, 09.2016, p. 559-565.

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal article

Harvard

APA

Vancouver

Author

Wilkinson, Stephen ; Williams, Nicola. / Should uterus transplants be publicly funded?. In: Journal of Medical Ethics. 2016 ; Vol. 42, No. 9. pp. 559-565.

Bibtex

@article{66d4e8babd734f20bef0f441c1af76a8,
title = "Should uterus transplants be publicly funded?",
abstract = "Since 2000, eleven human uterine transplantation procedures (UTx) have been performed across Europe and Asia. Five of these have, to date, resulted in pregnancy and four live births have now been recorded. The most significant obstacles to the availability of UTx are presently scientific and technical, relating to the safety and efficacy of the procedure itself.However, if and when such obstacles are overcome, the most likely barriers to its availability will be social and financial in nature, relating in particular to the ability and willingness of patients, insurers, or the state to pay. Thus, publicly funded healthcare systems such as the UK{\textquoteright}s National Health Service (NHS) will eventually have to decide whether UTx should be funded.With this in mind, we seek to provide an answer to the question of whether there exist any compelling reasons for the state not to fund UTx. The paper proceeds as follows. It assumes, at least for the sake of argument, that UTx will become sufficiently safe and cost-effective to be a candidate for funding and then asks, given that, what objections to funding there might be.Three main arguments are considered and ultimately rejected as providing insufficient reason to withhold funding for UTx. The first two are broad in their scope and offer an opportunity to reflect on wider issues about funding for infertility treatment in general. The third is narrower in scope and could, in certain forms, apply to UTx but not other assisted reproductive technologies (ARTs). The first argument suggests that UTx should not be publicly funded because doing so would be inconsistent with governments{\textquoteright} obligations toprevent climate change and environmental pollution. The second claims that UTx does not treat a disorder and is not medically necessary. Finally, the third asserts that funding for UTx should be denied because of the availability of alternatives such as adoption and surrogacy.",
keywords = "Uterine Transplant, Assisted Reproductive Technology, Reproductive Ethics, Distributive Justice, Resource Allocation, Infertility Treatment",
author = "Stephen Wilkinson and Nicola Williams",
year = "2016",
month = sep
doi = "10.1136/medethics-2015-102999",
language = "English",
volume = "42",
pages = "559--565",
journal = "Journal of Medical Ethics",
issn = "0306-6800",
publisher = "BMJ Publishing Group",
number = "9",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Should uterus transplants be publicly funded?

AU - Wilkinson, Stephen

AU - Williams, Nicola

PY - 2016/9

Y1 - 2016/9

N2 - Since 2000, eleven human uterine transplantation procedures (UTx) have been performed across Europe and Asia. Five of these have, to date, resulted in pregnancy and four live births have now been recorded. The most significant obstacles to the availability of UTx are presently scientific and technical, relating to the safety and efficacy of the procedure itself.However, if and when such obstacles are overcome, the most likely barriers to its availability will be social and financial in nature, relating in particular to the ability and willingness of patients, insurers, or the state to pay. Thus, publicly funded healthcare systems such as the UK’s National Health Service (NHS) will eventually have to decide whether UTx should be funded.With this in mind, we seek to provide an answer to the question of whether there exist any compelling reasons for the state not to fund UTx. The paper proceeds as follows. It assumes, at least for the sake of argument, that UTx will become sufficiently safe and cost-effective to be a candidate for funding and then asks, given that, what objections to funding there might be.Three main arguments are considered and ultimately rejected as providing insufficient reason to withhold funding for UTx. The first two are broad in their scope and offer an opportunity to reflect on wider issues about funding for infertility treatment in general. The third is narrower in scope and could, in certain forms, apply to UTx but not other assisted reproductive technologies (ARTs). The first argument suggests that UTx should not be publicly funded because doing so would be inconsistent with governments’ obligations toprevent climate change and environmental pollution. The second claims that UTx does not treat a disorder and is not medically necessary. Finally, the third asserts that funding for UTx should be denied because of the availability of alternatives such as adoption and surrogacy.

AB - Since 2000, eleven human uterine transplantation procedures (UTx) have been performed across Europe and Asia. Five of these have, to date, resulted in pregnancy and four live births have now been recorded. The most significant obstacles to the availability of UTx are presently scientific and technical, relating to the safety and efficacy of the procedure itself.However, if and when such obstacles are overcome, the most likely barriers to its availability will be social and financial in nature, relating in particular to the ability and willingness of patients, insurers, or the state to pay. Thus, publicly funded healthcare systems such as the UK’s National Health Service (NHS) will eventually have to decide whether UTx should be funded.With this in mind, we seek to provide an answer to the question of whether there exist any compelling reasons for the state not to fund UTx. The paper proceeds as follows. It assumes, at least for the sake of argument, that UTx will become sufficiently safe and cost-effective to be a candidate for funding and then asks, given that, what objections to funding there might be.Three main arguments are considered and ultimately rejected as providing insufficient reason to withhold funding for UTx. The first two are broad in their scope and offer an opportunity to reflect on wider issues about funding for infertility treatment in general. The third is narrower in scope and could, in certain forms, apply to UTx but not other assisted reproductive technologies (ARTs). The first argument suggests that UTx should not be publicly funded because doing so would be inconsistent with governments’ obligations toprevent climate change and environmental pollution. The second claims that UTx does not treat a disorder and is not medically necessary. Finally, the third asserts that funding for UTx should be denied because of the availability of alternatives such as adoption and surrogacy.

KW - Uterine Transplant

KW - Assisted Reproductive Technology

KW - Reproductive Ethics

KW - Distributive Justice

KW - Resource Allocation

KW - Infertility Treatment

U2 - 10.1136/medethics-2015-102999

DO - 10.1136/medethics-2015-102999

M3 - Journal article

VL - 42

SP - 559

EP - 565

JO - Journal of Medical Ethics

JF - Journal of Medical Ethics

SN - 0306-6800

IS - 9

ER -