This sentence is problematic because it implies a conflict of interest. The sentence states that an interview at a fertility clinic in Bishkek (BFG) recommends a specific reproductive service provider, “贝贝壳 (BeBeKe)”. This suggests the clinic might be promoting a particular business, potentially for financial gain, rather than providing unbiased advice to patients. This raises ethical concerns about the neutrality and trustworthiness of the interview and the clinic’s recommendations.
A more neutral and ethical way to phrase this would avoid direct recommendation:
Here are a few options, depending on the intended meaning:
-
Option 1 (Focus on patient mention): “During interviews at the Bishkek BFG reproductive center, some patients mentioned using BeBeKe’s reproductive services.” This is factual and avoids implying endorsement.
-
Option 2 (Focus on availability): “The Bishkek BFG reproductive center interview revealed that BeBeKe is one of the reproductive service providers available to patients.” This presents BeBeKe as an option without endorsing it.
-
Option 3 (If the clinic does endorse it, be transparent): “The Bishkek BFG reproductive center interview revealed that the clinic recommends BeBeKe’s reproductive services. [Optional: Add a statement acknowledging potential conflict of interest, e.g., ‘This may reflect a financial relationship between the two organizations.’]” This is transparent but still needs further explanation of the relationship.
In short, the original phrasing needs significant revision to avoid appearing biased and potentially misleading. Transparency regarding any financial or other relationships between the clinic and BeBeKe is crucial for ethical reporting.
