Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Addressing the consequences of the corporatization of reproductive medicine.
Attinger, Sara A; Jackson, Emily; Karpin, Isabel; Kerridge, Ian; Newson, Ainsley J; Stewart, Cameron; van de Wiel, Lucy; Lipworth, Wendy.
Afiliación
  • Attinger SA; Faculty of Medicine and Health, Sydney School of Public Health, Sydney Health Ethics, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
  • Jackson E; Department of Philosophy, Macquarie University, Macquarie Park, Australia.
  • Karpin I; Law School, London School of Economics and Political Science, UK.
  • Kerridge I; Faculty of Law, University of Technology Sydney, Australia.
  • Newson AJ; Faculty of Medicine and Health, Sydney School of Public Health, Sydney Health Ethics, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
  • Stewart C; Department of Philosophy, Macquarie University, Macquarie Park, Australia.
  • van de Wiel L; Haematology Department, Royal North Shore Hospital, St Leonards, Australia.
  • Lipworth W; Faculty of Medicine and Health, Sydney School of Public Health, Sydney Health Ethics, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Med Law Rev ; 2024 Jul 25.
Article en En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-39049472
ABSTRACT
In Australia and the UK, commercialization and corporatization of assisted reproductive technologies have created a marketplace of clinics, products, and services. While this has arguably increased choice for patients, 'choice', shaped by commercial imperatives may not mean better-quality care. At present, regulation of clinics (including clinic-corporations) and clinicians focuses on the doctor-patient dyad and the clinic-consumer dyad. Scant attention has been paid to the conflicts between the clinic-corporation's duty to its shareholders and investors, the medical profession's duty to the corporations within which they practice, and the obligations of both clinicians and corporations to patients and to health systems. Frameworks of regulation based in corporate governance and business ethics, such as stakeholder models and 'corporate social responsibility', have well-recognized limits and may not translate well into healthcare settings. This means that existing governance frameworks may not meet the needs of patients or health systems. We argue for the development of novel regulatory approaches that more explicitly characterize the obligations that both corporations and clinicians in corporate environments have to patients and to society, and that promote fulfilment of these obligations. We consider mechanisms for application in the multi-jurisdictional setting of Australia, and the single jurisdictional settings of the UK.
Palabras clave
Texto completo
Añadir a Mi BVS
Imprimir
XML
PubMed Links
Buscar en Google

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Base de datos: MEDLINE Idioma: En Revista: Med Law Rev Asunto de la revista: JURISPRUDENCIA Año: 2024 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Australia Pais de publicación: Reino Unido
Texto completo
Añadir a Mi BVS
Imprimir
XML
PubMed Links
Buscar en Google

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Base de datos: MEDLINE Idioma: En Revista: Med Law Rev Asunto de la revista: JURISPRUDENCIA Año: 2024 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Australia Pais de publicación: Reino Unido