Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
In China, a prominent case exists wherein a medically fit woman filed a lawsuit against a hospital for denying her request to undergo oocyte cryopreservation. She contended the hospital had infringed upon her rights. This paper focuses on medicalization and gender equality to discuss whether or not a hospital can infringe upon a woman's rights. We believe elective oocyte cryopreservation is not a medical treatment and it may lead to an overwhelming utilization of extensive medical resources. Reproductive medicine may face the risk of resource commercialization due to the practice of selective egg freezing. There are physiological disparities between males and females. The ability of men to cryopreserve sperm does not necessarily extend to a woman's capacity for oocyte cryopreservation. We contend that the application of this technology should continue to adhere to the principle of prudence.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/dewb.12471 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!