Are we exploiting the infertile couple?

R E Blackwell; B R Carr; R J Chang; A H DeCherney; A F Haney; W R Keye; R W Rebar; J A Rock; Z Rosenwaks; M M Seibel

doi:10.1016/s0015-0282(16)59521-1

Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 3666178

Are we exploiting the infertile couple?

R E Blackwell·B R Carr·R J Chang·A H DeCherney·A F Haney·W R Keye·R W Rebar·J A Rock·Z Rosenwaks·M M Seibel

View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

We hope that this article brings into focus some problems that merit consideration and debate. These thoughts come from a group of individuals who are actively engaged in reproductive endocrine/infertility practices with special interests ranging from ovulation induction to IVF to laser surgery. As a group, we practice in all parts of the country, and the problems mentioned are not restricted to any individual or region. We urge that all of us be candid with ourselves and our colleagues about what we can and cannot do for the infertile couple. We suggest that gynecologists ask themselves this question and proceed when the answer is affirmative: "Is this procedure really in the patient's best interest?"

Explore related subjects

Advertising Clinical Competence Ethics, Medical Fertilization in Vitro Humans Infertility Insemination, Artificial Professional Misconduct Genetics and Reproduction Professional Patient Relationship Journal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

R E Blackwell, B R Carr, R J Chang, A H DeCherney, A F Haney, W R Keye, R W Rebar, J A Rock, Z Rosenwaks, M M Seibel. 1987. Are we exploiting the infertile couple?. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0015-0282(16)59521-1

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2007

Variable selection and raking in propensity scoring.

This paper discusses some practical issues in applying propensity scoring in the context of endpoint analysis in a pre-/posttest longitudinal design with an ordinal measure of treatment intensity and a high-dimensional potential covariate space: how many covariates to include in propensity models; how to evaluate the adequacy of tentative propensity models; and how to tailor models to provide hypercontrol on a limited subset of covariates. These issues arose in the evaluation of a health communication program.

Advertising↗

PubMed2007

Search and identification methods that owners use to find a lost dog.

OBJECTIVE: To characterize the process by which owners search for lost dogs and identify factors associated with time to recovery. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SAMPLE POPULATION: Owners of 187 dogs lost in Montgomery County, Ohio, between June 1 and September 30, 2005. PROCEDURES: A telephone survey was conducted. RESULTS: 132 of the 187 (71%) dogs were recovered; median time to recovery was 2 days (range, 0.5 to 21 days). Dogs were recovered primarily through a call or visit to an animal agency (46 [34.8%]), a dog license tag (24 [18.2%]), and posting of neighborhood signs (20 [15.2%]). Eighty-nine (48%) dogs had some type of identification at the time they were lost (ie, identification tag, dog license tag, rabies tag, or microchip). Owners had a higher likelihood of recovery when they called an animal agency (hazard ratio, 2.1), visited an animal agency (1.8), and posted neighborhood signs. Dogs that were wearing a dog license tag also had a higher likelihood of recovery (hazard ratio, 1.6). Owners were less likely to recover their dogs if they believed their dogs were stolen (hazard ratio, 0.3). CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Results suggest that various factors are associated with the likelihood that owners will recover a lost dog. Both animal agencies and veterinarians can play a role in educating dog owners on the importance of identification tags, licensing, and microchips and can help to emphasize the importance of having a search plan in case a dog is lost.

Advertising↗

PubMed2007

Search and identification methods that owners use to find a lost cat.

OBJECTIVE: To characterize the process by which owners search for lost cats and identify factors associated with time to recovery. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SAMPLE POPULATION: Owners of 138 cats lost in Montgomery County, Ohio, between June 1 and September 30, 2005. PROCEDURES: A telephone survey was conducted. RESULTS: 73 of the 138 (53%) cats were recovered; median time to recovery was 5 days (range, 0.5 to 81 days). Most cats (48 [66%]) that were recovered returned home on their own or were found in the neighborhood (5 [7%]); most other cats were recovered through posting of neighborhood signs (8 [11%]) or calling or visiting an animal agency (5 [7%]). The highest success rate for any of the search methods that were used was only 12% (posting neighborhood signs). Only 26 of the 138 (19%) cats had some type of identification at the time they were lost (ie, identification tag, rabies tag, or microchip). Owners allowed 82 (59%) cats to spend at least some time outdoors. The percentage of sexually intact cats recovered by their owners (4/16 [25%]) was significantly lower than the percentage of neutered cats recovered (69/122 [57%]). CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Results suggest that the percentage of lost cats recovered by their owners is low, possibly in part because of the lack of use of traditional identification methods and the general acceptance that cats may roam. Veterinarians can help educate owners about the importance of identification and the need to keep cats indoors.

Advertising↗