Comparing the Burden: What Can We Learn by Comparing Regulatory Frameworks in Abortion and Fertility Services? [Book Review]

Health Care Analysis 21 (4):338-354 (2013)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

In the UK, regulation of clinical services is being restructured. We consider two clinical procedures, abortion and IVF treatment, which have similar ethical and political sensitivities. We consider factors including the law, licensing, inspection, amount of paperwork and reporting requirements, the reception by practitioners and costs, to establish which field has the greater ‘regulatory burden’. We test them based on scientific, ethical, social, political factors that might explain differences. We find that regulatory burden borne by IVF services is greater than in abortion, but none of the explanatory theses can provide a justification of this phenomenon. We offer an alternative explanation based on regulatory ‘overspill’ from research regulation and policy making, conceptualisation of risk regulation and a high public profile that locks a regulator into self-preservation

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 90,593

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Smarter regulations.Victoria Sutton - 2009 - Science and Engineering Ethics 15 (3):303-309.
The other abortion myth—the failure of the common law.Kate Gleeson - 2009 - Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 6 (1):69-81.
On costs, benefits, and regulatory success: Reply to Crandall.Cass R. Sunstein - 1994 - Critical Review: A Journal of Politics and Society 8 (4):623-633.
Abortion, society, and the law.David F. Walbert - 1973 - Cleveland [Ohio]: Press of Case Western Reserve University. Edited by J. Douglas Butler.

Analytics

Added to PP
2011-09-25

Downloads
23 (#584,438)

6 months
1 (#1,040,386)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?