Search

Due to the shortage of oocyte donors, the waiting lists are lengthening. This raises the ethical question of how the available oocytes should be distributed among candidate recipients. The paper clarifies the ethical structure of the allocation process to find a set of rules that generates decisions that are acceptable for all people involved. The selection includes two steps: admission to the waiting list and ranking of those on the list. The following criteria can be used to decide about the admission of candidates: success rate, health risks, age, parental competence, nationality, primary versus secondary infertility, and capacity to pay. Four criteria may function to rank recipients who should have first priority for receiving oocytes: waiting time, medical urgency, phenotypic matching, and synchronization. The introduction of a point system is defended because it allows balancing of the different ethical principles involved and because it installs an objective system of operating rules which avoid favoritism and personal biases.

This paper raises the question of distributive justice in the allocation of donor oocytes. The shortage of oocytes has resulted in waiting lists of several years. The largest group of candidate recipients are postmenopausal women. Questions have been raised about their right to these scarce resources. The criteria that might be morally relevant in the allocation decision are divided according to the stage at which they are applied: either for the admission to the waiting list or for the ranking of those already on the waiting list. Five factors are analysed: success rates, fault, parental competence, medical urgency and waiting time. It is concluded that none of the relevant criteria justifies discrimination against postmenopausal women.

Copyright of Culture, Health & Sexuality is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

This Task Force document discusses ethical issues arising with requests for medically assisted reproduction from people in what may be called ‘non-standard’ situations and relationships. The document stresses that categorically denying access to any of these groups cannot be reconciled with a human rights perspective. If there are concerns about the implications of assisted reproduction on the wellbeing of any of the persons involved, including the future child, a surrogate mother or the applicants themselves, these concerns have to be considered in the light of the available scientific evidence. When doing so it is important to avoid the use of double standards. More research is needed into the psychosocial implications of raising children in non-standard situations, especially with regard to single women, male homosexual couples and transsexual people. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

This Task Force document discusses some relatively unexplored ethical issues involved in preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD). The document starts from the wide consensus that PGD is ethically acceptable if aimed at helping at-risk couples to avoid having a child with a serious disorder. However, if understood as a limit to acceptable indications for PGD, this ‘medical model’ may turn out too restrictive. The document discusses a range of possible requests for PGD that for different reasons fall outwith the accepted model and argues that instead of rejecting those requests out of hand, they need to be independently assessed in the light of ethical criteria. Whereas, for instance, there is no good reason for rejecting PGD in order to avoid health problems in a third generation (where the second generation would be healthy but faced with burdensome reproductive choices if wanting to have children), using PGD to make sure that one's child will have the same disorder or handicap as its parents, is ethically unacceptable. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

This Task Force document explores the ethical issues involved in the debate about the scope of genetic screening of gamete donors. Calls for expanded donor screening arise against the background of both occasional findings of serious but rare genetic conditions in donors or donor offspring that were not detected through present screening procedures and the advent of new genomic technologies promising affordable testing of donors for a wide range of conditions. Ethical principles require that all stakeholders' interests are taken into account, including those of candidate donors. The message of the profession should be that avoiding all risks is impossible and that testing should remain proportional. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

STUDY QUESTION Do the socio-demographic and fertility-related characteristics and motivations of oocyte donors differ in European countries? SUMMARY ANSWER The socio-demographic and fertility-related characteristics and motivations of oocyte donors differ considerably across countries. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY There have been no other international studies comparing the characteristics of oocyte donors. Regarding their motivations, most studies indicate mixed motives. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION The proposed study was a transversal epidemiological study. Data were collected from 63 voluntarily participating assisted reproduction technology centres practising oocyte donation in 11 European countries (Belgium, Czech Republic, Finland, France, Greece, Poland, Portugal, Russia, Spain, UK and Ukraine). The survey was conducted between September 2011 and June 2012 and ran for 1–6 calendar months depending on the number of cycles of oocyte donation performed at the centre. The sample size was computed in order to allow an estimate of the percentage of a relatively rare characteristic (∼2%) with a precision (95% confidence interval) of 1%. The calculation gave 1118 donors. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS In total, 1423 forms were obtained from oocyte donors. All consecutive donors in these centres filled out an anonymous questionnaire when they started their hormonal stimulation, asking for their socio-demographic and fertility-related characteristics, their motivations and compensation. Population characteristics were described and compared by country of donation. Motives for donation and mean amount of money were compared between countries and according to the donors characteristics. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE The socio-demographic and fertility-related characteristics and motivations of oocyte donors varied enormously across European countries. The number of received forms corresponded with a participation rate of 61.9% of the cycles performed by the participating centres. Mean age was 27.4 years. About 49% of donors were fully employed, 16% unemployed and 15% student. The motivation in the total group of donors was 47.8% pure altruism, 33.9% altruism and financial, 10.8% pure financial, 5.9% altruism and own treatment and finally 2% own treatment only. About 15% of the donors were egg sharers (patient donors), mainly from the UK and Poland. Women were donating for the first time in 55.4% of cases, for the second time in 20.3% and for the third time in 12.8%. The motivation to donate was significantly related to being of foreign origin (P < 0.01), age (P < 0.001), living in couple or not (P < 0.01), level of education (P < 0.001) and number of donations (P < 0.001). The amount of compensation differed considerably between centres and/or countries. The general donor profile in this study was a well-educated, 27-year-old woman living with her partner and child who mainly donated to help others. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION The selection of clinics in some countries and the limited participation rate may have led to a bias in donor characteristics. A possible effect of social desirability in the answers by the donors should be taken into account. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS The diversity of the donor population reflects the differences in European legislation (for example, on anonymity and payment) and economic circumstances. The differences in systems of reimbursement/payment demonstrate the need to have a thorough discussion on the specific meaning of these terms. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S) The study was funded by the European Society for Human Reproduction and Embryology. The authors declare no conflicting interests. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This Task Force document revisits the debate about the ethics of sex selection for non-medical reasons in the light of relevant new technological developments. First, as a result of improvement of the Microsort® flow cytometry method, there is now a proven technique for preconception sex selection that can be combined both with IVF and IUI. Secondly, the scenario where new approaches that are currently being developed for preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) may lead to such screening becoming a routine part of all IVF treatment. In that scenario professionals will more often be confronted with parental requests for transfer of an embryo of a specific sex. Thirdly, the recent development of non-invasive prenatal testing based on cell-free fetal DNA in maternal plasma allows for easy and safe sex determination in the early stages of pregnancy. While stressing the new urgency that these developments give to the debate, the Task Force did not come to a unanimous position with regard to the acceptability of sex selection for non-medical reasons in the context of assisted reproduction. Whereas some think maintaining the current ban is the best approach, others are in favour of allowing sex selection for non-medical reasons under conditions that take account of societal concerns about the possible impact of the practice. By presenting these positions, the document reflects the different views about this issue that also exist in the field. Specific recommendations include the need for a wider delineation of accepted ‘medical reasons’ than in terms of avoiding a serious sex-linked disorder, and for a clarification of the legal position with regard to answering parental requests for ‘additional sex selection’ in the context of medically indicated preimplantation genetic diagnosis, or routine PGS. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

The recent introduction of oocyte vitrification has significantly advanced the outcome of oocyte cryopreservation, leading to clinical results comparable to those achieved in IVF using fresh oocytes, as reported by experienced centres. This has lead to new debate, both in the professional community and in society at large, about the acceptability of offering this technology to reproductively healthy women who want to cryopreserve their oocytes against the threat of time. Given the many demands calling for simultaneous realization in a relatively short period of their lives, many women who want to have children feel to be under considerable pressure. The option of oocyte cryopreservation may in fact give them more breathing space. In this document, it is concluded that the arguments against allowing this application of the technology are not convincing. The recommendations include the need for adequate information of women interested in oocyte cryopreservation, also in order to avoid raising false hopes. The message must remain that women's best chances of having a healthy child are through natural reproduction at a relative early age. Centres offering this service must have the necessary expertise to employ oocyte cryopreservation efficiently with the so far non-standardized protocols. As data about long-term safety is still lacking, centres also have a responsibility to contribute to the collection of these data. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

BACKGROUND This study examined the responses of patients of a Belgian fertility center to mailed requests to make or renew an embryo disposition decision (EDD), over a period of 15 years, to investigate trends in the decisions. METHODS A retrospective analysis was performed on a mailing program from 1992 to 2006, for patients, of the Department of Reproductive Medicine, Ghent University Hospital (Belgium), from whom embryos had been cryopreserved at least 2 years. RESULTS In 15 years, 3840 EDD forms were prepared for 2334 couples or female patients. The number of forms increased from 21 in 1992 to 558 in 2006. Each year, around a third of the forms were not returned. In general, a quarter of patients who received more than one form never answered. Donation to others for reproduction was overall the least popular option and decreased over the years. The rising trend in decisions to discard reversed into a negative trend from the introduction of donation for science (1997). Since then, donation for science has been the most popular option and its popularity increased with time. In 15 years, 2504 embryos were donated for science. More than a quarter of the patients who chose more than one final EDD in different years did not select the same EDD the second time. CONCLUSIONS This study showed a positive trend in donation for science and a negative trend in donation to others and discarding. A substantial number of individual patients chose different types of EDDs in consecutive mailings, which shows that advance EDD directives should be used with caution. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

OBJECTIVE Cryopreservation of supernumerary embryos resulting from IVF treatment offers extra chances to conceive. The objective of this study is to describe patients’ decisions to continue or discontinue storage of their embryos after a minimum storage period of 2 years. METHODS Female patients who had embryos stored at the Infertility Centre of the Ghent University Hospital (Belgium) were sent a mail questionnaire to be completed anonymously. RESULTS The questionnaire had a response rate of 79% (326/412). After an embryo storage period of at least 2 years, 40% of the couples who were still together wished to continue storage of their embryos. Half of these had no concrete plans for a transfer and wanted to postpone the decision or keep all options open. For those who decided to discontinue storage (60%), the main reason was the completion of their families. Despite the fact that the patients’ child wish was the main factor in their storage decision, two groups of patients with distinct profiles made decisions that were inconsistent with their child wish: those who wanted to continue storage while not wanting a(nother) child (7% of those with no child wish), and those who wanted a(nother) child but decided to discontinue storage (25% of those with a child wish). Overall, these patients more often expressed emotional difficulties regarding this decision. CONCLUSIONS This study demonstrates the importance of gaining more insight into patients’ embryo storage decisions (along with their embryo disposition decisions) and into the emotional factors playing a role in patients’ decision-making. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

For different motives, couples in need of third party assisted reproduction sometimes prefer the help of a family member over an unrelated collaborator. Quantitative (frequency) and qualitative (experience) data about this practice are lacking or scarce. Forms of intrafamilial medically assisted reproduction (IMAR) are different with respect to (i) familial closeness between the collaborator and the person whose reproductive contribution he or she replaces and whether assistance would be intra- or intergenerational, (ii) the relationship between the collaborator and the fertile partner (this relationship may or may not be consanguineous) and (iii) with regard to the material (sperm and oocytes) that is donated and the services (surrogacy) that are offered. This document aims at providing guidance to the professional handling of requests for IMAR. It briefly sketches the background of this practice and discusses a variety of relevant normative aspects. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Recent preclinical studies have shown the feasibility of specific variants of nuclear transfer to preventmitochondrial DNA disorders. Nuclear transfer could be a valuable reproductive option for carriers ofmitochondrial mutations. A clinical application of nuclear transfer, however, would entail germ-line modification, more specifically a germ-line modification of the mitochondrial genome. One of the most prominent objections against germ-line modification is the fear that it would become possible to alter 'essential characteristics' of a future person, thereby possibly violating the child's right to an open future. As only the nuclear DNA would contain the ingredients for individual characteristics, modification of the mtDNA is often considered less controversial than modification of the nuclear DNA. This paper discusses the tenability of this dichotomy. After having clarified the concept of germ-line modification, it argues that modification of the mtDNA is not substantively different from modification of the nuclear DNA in terms of its effects on the identity of the future person. Subsequently the paper assesses how this conclusion affects the moral evaluation of nuclear transfer to prevent mtDNA disorders. It concludes that the moral acceptability of germ-line modification does not depend on whether it alters the identity of the future childdall germ-line modifications dodbut on whether it safeguards the child's right to an open future. If nuclear transfer to prevent mtDNA disorders becomes safe and effective, then dismissing it because it involves germ-line modification is unjustified. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Lifestyle is increasingly recognized as an outcome-determining factor in assisted reproduction, not only with regard to the cost-effectiveness but also in view of the balance of benefits and risks, including risks related to the welfare of the future child. This document briefly summarizes the evidence concerning the impact of three lifestyle-related factors (obesity, tobacco smoking and alcohol consumption) on both natural and assisted reproduction (IVF) and discusses the implications of this for the practice of medically assisted reproduction in the light of relevant ethical principles. The central question is whether and to what extent fertility treatment of obese, smoking or drinking patients should be made conditional on prior lifestyle changes. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

The current practice of demanding the consent of the spouse for sperm donation is analysed. Three aspects of marriage may be involved: (i) sexual exclusivity and adultery, (ii) family composition and (iii) procreational exclusivity. The different justifications for giving the partner the right to participate in the decision-making process are critically scrutinized. The perspective taken in this article is that the transfer of gametes must be understood and situated within the moral framework of the relationship between donor and partner. Depending on the kind of relationship the donor has with his partner, he may be morally obliged to consult his procreational partner. In a close relationship, all decisions concerning the use of one's reproductive faculties should be joint decisions. However, it is not the task of the clinic or the physician to see that donors honour their agreements and commitments. The clinic should not seek the partner's consent, although in the counselling sessions it should be pointed out to the donor that he may have a responsibility to inform his partner and to confer with her on his donation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A continuing feature of gamete donation is the scarcity of available donors. A strategy to improve the meagre supply of gametes would be to adjust the donation procedure to the wishes and desires of the donors. However, giving donors the right to direct their gametes to certain groups of recipients goes against the general rule that donors relinquish all rights and duties. Moreover, allocation by the donor might very well run counter to the rules of distributional justice. On the other hand, the allocation right can be supported by the principle of autonomy and by the donor's interest in and contribution to the process. The position is taken that the donors should have the right to direct their gametes to categories accepted as relevant by the moral and religious communities in their society. They should not be given the right to add their own categories to the exclusion list. If donors are not allowed to allocate their gift, they should at least be informed as to which categories of recipient are treated by the hospital to enable them to decide whether they want to donate gametes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: The term “social freezing” is used to degrade the reason for freezing eggs to the level of a wish instead of a need. The main problem is that the distinction between “social” and “medical” freezing is very difficult to make and many applications do not fit nicely into one of the categories. The rejection of these applications also suffers from a number of inconsistencies. Given the difficulties in separating the two models, it is proposed that all applications, regardless of the reason, should be evaluated with the same criteria: efficiency, safety and justice. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Analogical reasoning is a basic method in bioethics. Its main purpose is to transfer the rule from an existing or known situation to a new and problematic situation. This commentary applies the lifeboat analogy to the context of selective termination and fetal reduction. It turns out that the analogy is only partially helpful as the main principle in the case of selective termination is the procreative beneficence principle. However, the wide person-affecting form of this principle doubly justifies selective termination: i.e. one prevents the harm caused by the birth of an affected child and one increases the life chances of the remaining fetuses. I conclude, however, that all analogies are basically flawed since they assume that fetuses as such have interests. I argue that fetuses only have interests to the extent that they are potential future persons. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Preclinical experiments are currently performed to examine the feasibility of several types of nuclear transfer to prevent mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) disorders. Whereas the two most promising types of nuclear transfer to prevent mtDNA disorders, spindle transfer and pronuclear transfer, do not amount to reproductive cloning, one theoretical variant, blastomere transfer does. This seems the most challenging both technically and ethically. It is prohibited by many jurisdictions and also the scientific community seems to avoid it. Nevertheless, this paper examines the moral acceptability of blastomere transfer as a method to prevent mtDNA disorders. The reason for doing so is that most objections against reproductive cloning refer to reproductive adult cloning, while blastomere transfer would amount to reproductive embryo cloning. After clarifying this conceptual difference, this paper examines whether the main non-safety objections brought forward against reproductive cloning also apply in the context of blastomere transfer. The conclusion is that if this variant were to become safe and effective, dismissing it because it would involve reproductive cloning is unjustified. Nevertheless, as it may lead to more complex ethical appraisals than the other variants, researchers should initially focus on the development of the other types of nuclear transfer to prevent mtDNA disorders. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]