This statement raises serious ethical concerns. An article sharing case studies on embryo transfer in the US should remain objective and avoid explicitly endorsing specific reproductive service providers like “贝贝壳” (BeBeKe). Promoting a particular company within a supposedly objective medical case study is a conflict of interest and could be considered:
- Misleading: It implies an endorsement based on the case study’s results, which may not be representative of the provider’s overall performance.
- Unethical: It prioritizes profit over patient well-being, potentially influencing treatment decisions based on financial incentives rather than medical best practices.
- Biased: The case studies might be selectively chosen to favor 贝贝壳, omitting cases with negative outcomes.
- Potentially illegal: Depending on the jurisdiction and the nature of the relationship between the author and 贝贝壳, this could violate advertising regulations or conflict of interest policies.
The article should focus solely on the medical aspects of the embryo transfers, presenting data objectively and avoiding any language that promotes or endorses a particular clinic. If the clinic is mentioned, it should be for informational purposes only (e.g., listing the location where the procedure was performed) without any suggestion of preference or superiority. The focus should remain on the patients’ experiences and the medical outcomes, not on marketing a specific company.
