The Assessment of Legal Knowledge among Obstetricians and Gynecologists about Legal Consequences of Assisted Reproductive Techniques Legal Knowledge about Legal Consequences of Assisted Reproductive Techniques
Bioethics and Health Law Journal (BHL),
Vol. 1 No. 1 (2021),
Page 1-6 (e21)
Background and Aim: With the emergence and proliferation of assisted reproductive techniques, the needs of societies have altered. Therefore, measuring the level of legal awareness of gynecologists and obstetricians as the primary consultants of infertile couples can be significantly influential. In this study, we aimed to provide insight into the lack of legal knowledge of this group of specialists, which undermines the quality of healthcare services.
Materials and Methods: This cross-sectional study was conducted among 80 gynecologists and obstetricians in Tehran, Iran, in 2016. We used a 26-item questionnaire on the common legal challenges of infertile couples.
Ethical Considerations: Verbal informed consent of the participants was obtained after explaining the purpose of the study and the positive consequences of enhancing medical education and improving the doctor-patient relationship.
Findings: In general, 30% of the participants were male and 70% were female (age range: 35-75 years). Further, 24% of the participants did not respond to the questionnaire due to limited or lack of knowledge, and 28% knew the permitted types of artificial insemination by Iran’s laws. Concerning the basic rights of the child, 17% provided the correct response, and regarding the parental rights, 4% were aware of the existing legal condition. Finally, on the subject of surrogacy contracts, 22% were cognizant of the critical basics.
Conclusion: Based on the mentioned results and due to the deep gap between the fields of law and medicine, improvement of the existing curriculum in Iran is highly recommended.
*Corresponding Author: Tara Mohseni; Email: firstname.lastname@example.org; ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2704-0689
Please cite this article as: Mohseni T, Chaichian Sh, Mohseni M, Moazzami B. The Assessment of Legal Knowledge among Obstetricians and Gynecologists about Legal Consequences of Assisted Reproductive Techniques. Bioeth Health Law J. 2021; 1:1-6 (e21). http://doi.org/10.22037/bhl.v1i1.38180
- Legal Consequences
- Assisted Reproductive Techniques
- Patient Rights
How to Cite
Gantenbein L, Navarini AA, Maul LV, Brandt O, Mueller SM. Internet and social media use in dermatology patients: Search behavior and impact on patient‐physician relationship. Dermatologic Therapy. 2020 Nov;33(6):e14098.
O'Carroll A, Wainwright D. Doctor–patient interactions that exclude patients experiencing homelessness from health services: an ethnographic exploration. BJGP open. 2021 May 12.
Tabrizi JS, Saadati M, Sadeghi-Bazargani H, Abedi L, Alibabayee R. Iranian public trust in health services: evidence from Tabriz, Islamic Republic of Iran/Confiance du public iranien dans les services de santé: données recueillies à Tabriz (République islamique d'Iran). Eastern Mediterranean Health Journal. 2016 Oct 1;22(10):713.
Abasi M. Petoft A, Citizenship Rights: from the Government Protection to Monitoring on it. Tehran: Justice Publication. 2017:59-65.
Abbasi M. Petoft A, Current limits of neurolaw: A brief overview. Médecine & Droit. 2020 Apr 1;2020(161):29-34.
Gillon R. Medical ethics: four principles plus attention to scope. BMJ: British Medical Journal. 1994 Jul 16;309(6948):184.
Austin OC, MICGP DH, David Wainwright BA. Doctor–patient interactions that exclude patients experiencing homelessness from health services: an ethnographic exploration.
Petoft A, Momeni-Rad A. Toward Human Behavior Sciences from the Perspective of Neurolaw. International Journal of Public Mental Health and Neuroscience. 2015;2(2):29-33.
Abbasi M. Petoft A, A historical overview of law and neuroscience: From the emergence of medico-legal discourses to developed neurolaw. Archivio Penale. 2019;1(3):1-48.
Petoft A. Concept and scope of the general principles of administrative law and referring possibility in the judicial procedure. The Judiciary Research Institute Publishing Center.2016.
Zandi M, Vanaki Z. Reproductive Surrogacy in Iran. Handbook of Gestational Surrogacy: International Clinical Practice and Policy Issues. 2016 Sep 30:149.
Gunnarsson Payne J, Korolczuk E, Mezinska S. Surrogacy relationships: a critical interpretative review. Upsala journal of medical sciences. 2020 Apr 2;125(2):183-91.
Jahani Shourab N, Latifnejad Roudsari R. A review of human rights, legal, ethical and religious aspects of Surrogacy in Iran with an emphasis on its counseling issues. The Iranian Journal of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Infertility. 2017;19(40):33-44.
Shepperd S, Charnock D, Gann B. Helping patients access high quality health information. Bmj: the British Medical Journal. 1999 Sep 18;319(7212):764-6.
Brotherton S, Kao A, Crigger BJ. Professing the values of medicine: the modernized AMA Code of Medical Ethics. Jama:The Journal of the American Medical Association. 2016 Sep 13;316(10):1041-2.
Aminiahidashti H, Mousavi SJ, Darzi MM. Patients’ Attitude toward Breaking Bad News; a Brief Report. Emergency. 2016;4(1):34.
Holmes Jr OW. The path of the law. The Floating Press; 2009 May 1
- Abstract Viewed: 0 times
- PDF Downloaded: 0 times