scholarly journals Are intra follicular estradiol and oocytes quality in women undergoing assisted reproductive technology different between the right and left ovaries? An observational study

Author(s):  
Robabeh Taheripanah ◽  
Marzieh Zamaniyan ◽  
Mohammadali Karimzadeh Meybodi ◽  
Mohamad hossein Amir-arjmand ◽  
Ardalan Mansouri ◽  
...  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julia Menichetti ◽  
Jennifer Gerwing ◽  
Lidia Borghi ◽  
Pål Gulbrandsen ◽  
Elena Vegni

IntroductionThe assisted reproductive technology (ART) field deals with consistent and predictable gaps in knowledge. Expressing lack of knowledge with a sentence like “I don’t know” can be challenging for doctors. This study examined physicians’ negative epistemic disclaimer “non lo so” in Italian ART doctor-couple interactions. In particular, it aimed to reveal specific features of “non lo so”: function, topic, temporality, responsibility, and interactional aspects.MethodsThis was a video-based observational study. We used microanalysis of face-to-face dialogue to analyze 20 purposively selected triadic consultations from a corpus of 85. This inductive analysis focused on the function, the content (topic and temporality) and some selected interactional aspects of the “non lo so”, quantifying and capturing the interaction between these qualitative features.ResultsWe found 82 doctors’ “non lo so” in the corpus (mean = 4.4; range = 0–15). We discovered three main functions of this expression: propositional (n = 73/82), relational (n = 6/82), discursive (n = 3/82). The most frequent topics raising doctors’ “non lo so” were costs (n = 11/82), treatment-related aspects (n = 10/82), and timing issues (n = 9/82). In more than half of the cases (n = 44/82), present issues emerged. The majority (n = 70/82) of “non lo so” was framed using the “I,” with doctors’ taking personal responsibility. Patients played a role in these expressions from doctors: Patients initiated more than one third of them, and in one fourth of the cases, patients followed up immediately.ConclusionOur findings may be related to characteristics of the specific field of ART. Doctors in this setting must frequently express a direct lack of knowledge to their patients, and when they do, they mean it literally. Patients contribute to such disclosures, and their responses suggest that they find them acceptable, showing that they may expect limitations in their potential to conceive.


2012 ◽  
Vol 61 (5) ◽  
Author(s):  
Aldo Rocco Vitale

L’articolo esamina la recente decisione della Corte Europea dei Diritti dell’Uomo che ha censurato la legge 40/2004 in tema di procreazione medicalmente assistita per il suo divieto di diagnosi genetica preimpianto. La Corte ha accusato di incoerenza l’ordinamento giuridico italiano perché esso vieta la diagnosi genetica preimpianto, ma ammette l’aborto terapeutico. Il contributo analizza brevemente il caso e la sentenza riguardante una coppia di portatori sani di fibrosi cistica che chiedeva l’accesso alle tecniche previste dalla legge 40/2004 lamentando la violazione del diritto alla vita privata e familiare e il divieto di discriminazione contemplati dagli art. 8 e 14 della Convenzione Europea per i Diritti dell’Uomo. Quindi si passa ad una critica etica, filosofica e giuridica del problema trattato, soffermandosi sulla differenza e sul rapporto tra la legge italiana sull’aborto e quella sulla procreazione medicalmente assistita, sulla diagnosi genetica preimpianto e sul rischio di eugenetica che essa porta con sé. ---------- The article examines the recent decision of the European Court of human rights which has censored the Italian law 40/2004 on assisted reproductive technology for its ban on preimplantation genetic diagnosis. The Court accused of inconsistency the Italian legal system because it prohibits preimplantation genetic diagnosis, but admits the therapeutic abortion. The contribution analyses briefly the case and the ruling concerning a pair of healthy carriers of cystic fibrosis that sought access to techniques foreseen by law 40/2004 complaining of the violation of the right to private and family life and the prohibition of discrimination covered by art. 8 and 14 of the European Convention on human rights. So we then move on to a philosophical, legal and ethics critique of the problem issued, dwelling on the difference and relationship between the Italian law on abortion and on assisted reproductive technology, on preimplantation genetic diagnosis and on the risk of eugenics that it brings.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document