Search

Background: Healthcare costs are increased by the adoption of novel technologies before solid evidence on efficacy and risks. Oocyte cryopreservation for preserving fertility raises special ethical challenges. We compared opinions of professionals for assisted reproductive technology (ART), bioethicists, medical students and the general population toward the questions: do you support access to oocyte cryopreservation to preserve fertility for personal reasons and who should bear the costs?, Methods: The surveys conducted for this study were carried out in Israel included the following: (1) survey of 21 ART unit directors; (2) interviews with 23 bioethics experts; (3) survey of 196 medical students from 2 universities; (4) random digit-dial population-based survey of the public (N=600)., Results: Nearly 80% of ART and bioethics experts and 56% of students thought that oocyte cryopreservation should be allowed even for personal reasons. While expressing concerns about social consequences, bioethicists emphasized individuals' rights. In contrast, among the public, only 40% supported the use of this technology for personal reasons (ranging from 24% among Ultra-orthodox Jews and Arabs, to 51% among seculars or with academic education). Of note, 15% were undecided (vs. <2% among students, P<0.001). Most experts suggested private financing of the procedure for personal reasons, whereas the public preferred national or private insurance coverage., Conclusions: Nonexperts present a greater level of ambivalence than experts toward the use of a novel fertility technology for nonmedical reasons. Experts' preferences and interests may facilitate adoption of novel technologies with yet unclear effectiveness and safety, potentially contributing to increased healthcare costs.

Background: In recent years there have been significant advances in the process of oocyte cryopreservation. Advanced techniques including vitrification have seen increasing success rates of fertilization. These successes warrant renewed public consideration and debate on several issues: In what circumstances? Who should pay? How should the process be regulated?, Study Question: Our goals were to examine the approach to oocyte cryopreservation amongst attending in-vitro fertilization (IVF) physicians and amongst researchers in the field of bioethics and health regulation., Methods: Questionnaires regarding egg freezing were given to physicians heading IVF departments in Israel, and to bioethics researchers / health care administrators., Results: Among the two groups questioned, there is strong support (80%) for the freezing of oocytes for personal circumstances, which may not be purely medical. Despite this support, there appears to be a difference in reasoning for this support. While most physicians see no reason to inhibit using the technology, bioethicists attend to the conflict between personal liberties and potentially troubling ethical consequences on society when utilizing these technologies. There is an additional discrepancy between the groups concerning regulation. Physicians prefer regulation by administrative means, while bioethicists would prefer regulation by Laws., Conclusions: Despite widespread support of oocyte cryopreservation for personal reasons among the two groups questioned, their views arise from different rationales. implementation of egg freezing technologies requires careful interdisciplinary discussion in order to consider the various medical, ethical, and sociological factors that these technologies will incur.