Crisis in assisted conception: The British approach to an American dilemma

Journal of Women's Health

Volumn 7, Issue 3, 1998, Pages 321-328

  White, Gladys B ^a,b  

^a Natl Advsy Bd on Ethics in Repro   (United States)

^b NONE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CERTIFICATION; CLONING; EMBRYO TRANSFER; FERTILIZATION IN VITRO; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; INFERTILITY THERAPY; INTRACYTOPLASMIC SPERM INJECTION; LICENCE; MEDICAL RESEARCH; MULTIPLE PREGNANCY; OOCYTE; OVULATION INDUCTION; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRENATAL DIAGNOSIS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY CONTROL; REPRODUCTION; REVIEW; UNITED KINGDOM; UNITED STATES;

EID: 0031922656     PISSN: 10597115     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1089/jwh.1998.7.321     Document Type: Review

References (19)

1. Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority. Annual report. 1995.
2. Gunning J, English V. Human in vitro fertilization. A case study in the regulation of medical innovation, Aldershot: Dartmouth, 1993.
3. Goldhill F. Is assisted reproduction a process ripe for regulation? NABOR Report 1995;1(3):1.
4. Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority. Donated ovarian tissue in embryo research and assisted contraception. Public consultation document, produced for consultation January 7, 1994-July 15, 1994.
5. Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority. Sex selection. Public consultation document, produced for consultation January 22, 1993-June 1, 1993.
6. Wilcox LS, Kiely JL, Melvin CL, Martin MC, Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology and The American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Assisted reproductive technology in the United States and Canada: 1994 results generated from the American Society for Reproductive Medicine/Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology Registry. Fertil Steril 1996;66:697.
7. Gabriel T. High-tech pregnancies test hope's limit. New York Times, January 7, 1996:1.
8. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment. Infertility: Medical and social choices. OTA-BA-358 Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, May 1988.
9. National Advisory Board on Ethics in Reproduction. A.R.T., Ads and Ethics conference proceedings and submitted papers. Women's Health Issues 1997;7(3).
10. U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, American Society for Reproductive Medicine, RESOLVE. 1995 Assisted reproductive technology success rates. National summary and fertility clinic reports. 1997; vols 1-3.
11. Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendment of 1988, PL 100-578, 42 CFR Part 493.
12. Wilcox LS, Kiely JL, Melvin CL, Martin MC. Assisted reproductive technologies: Estimates of their contribution to multiple births and newborn hospital days in the United States. Fertil Steril 1996;65:361.
13. Callahan TL, Hall JE, Ettner SL, et al. The economic impact of multiple-gestation pregnancies and the contribution of assisted-reproduction techniques to their incidence. N Engl J Med 1994;331:244.
14. Smith-Levitan M, Kowalik A, Birnholz J, et al. Selective reduction of multifetal pregnancies to twins improves outcome over nonreduced triplet gestätions. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1996;175:878.
15. Corchia C, Mastroiacovo P, Lanni R, Mannazzu R, Curro V, Fabris C. What proportion of multiple births are due to ovulation induction? A register-based study in Italy. Am J Public Health 1996;86:851.
16. National Advisory Board on Ethics in Reproduction. Alleged wrongdoing in reproductive medical practice in the U.S. NABOR Report 1995;1(2):1,5.
17. Ellis GB. No news here. Fertil Steril 1995;64:1062.
18. Robertson J. The case of the switched embryos. Hastings Center Report 1995;25:13.
19. Jones H. The time has come [Editor's Corner]. Fertil Steril 1996;65:1090.