Search

Purpose This study aims to evaluate the opinion of university students about the identification or nonidentification of gamete donation and the probability of donation according to the different regimes. Methods This was a cross-sectional observational study based on an online anonymous survey including questions about sociodemographic data, reasons for considering donations, information about the donation process and legislation, and their opinions about the different regimes and how they would influence donations. Results In total, 1393 valid responses were obtained, with a mean age of 24.0 years (SD = 4.8), most of the respondents being female (68.5%), living in a relationship (56.7%), and without children (88.4%). The main reasons for considering donation would be altruism and monetary compensation. Overall, it was found that participants were poorly informed about the donation procedure and legislation. Students revealed preference for nonidentified donation, and they were less likely to donate in an open identity regime. Conclusion Most university students consider themselves poorly informed about gamete donation, express a preference for nonidentified gamete donation, and would less likely donate on an open identity basis. Thus, an identified regime may be less attractive to potential donors and lead to a decrease in the availability of gamete donors.

To compare reproductive outcomes of the ROPA method (reception of oocytes from partner) to IVF with autologous oocytes. To study the impact of the absence of a genetic link between the embryo and its recipient in reproductive outcomes.Retrospective multicentric cohort study performed from January 2011 to December 2020 in 18 fertility clinics in Spain. A total of 99 ROPA (73 couples) and 2929 non-ROPA cycles (2334 couples or single patients) of women younger than 38 years old with no known female fertility disorder were included. Clinical outcomes were compared between both groups and included positive pregnancy test, clinical pregnancy, miscarriage, ectopic pregnancy, pre-term birth, live birth, weeks of gestation at birth, and newborn weight at birth.No differences were found between groups in clinical outcomes. The total clinical pregnancy rates per embryo transfer were 57% and 50.2% (p = 0.15) and the live-birth rates were 46.1% and 40.9% (p = 0.14) for the ROPA and non-ROPA groups, respectively. When adjusted to age and BMI of donors and recipients, there were also no differences in live-birth rates between both groups. The cumulative live-birth rate per ROPA cycle was 73.7% and the cumulative live-birth rate per couple was 78.3%.Clinical outcomes following the ROPA method and IVF with autologous oocytes were found to be similar. These findings suggest no impact of the absence of genetic ties between the embryo and the uterus on reproductive treatments' outcomes. Data regarding the outcomes of the ROPA method are reassuring.

Recently, a technique of assisted reproduction was developed to allow lesbian women to share biological motherhood of their offspring - the ROPA method (in Spanish - Recepción de Ovocitos de Pareja; in English - Reception of Partner's Oocytes), also known as lesbian shared in vitro fertilization. One mother provides the oocytes (genetic mother) and the other receives the embryo and gets pregnant (gestational mother). As for most issues related to medically assisted reproduction, this technique raises a lot of ethical questions in respect to patients, future offspring, gametes, and embryos. Furthermore, the fact that it is directed to homosexual women poses its own issues, both biological and social in nature. This is a state-of-the-art review of the main ethical dilemmas related to this technique, primarily focusing on the basic principles of bioethics, but also specific concerns directly related to this kind of treatments.