Why do couples refuse or discontinue ART?

Review

Abstract

The first child born after in-vitro fertilisation, (IVF)-treatment, just passed its 26th birthday in July 2004. Since that birth-assisted reproduction techniques (ART) became a practicable technology, they had been used all over the world, and more than 2 million children were born after IVF-treatment. Despite all success in this field, ART is neither accepted nor used for all infertile couples, although this might be the only possibility of becoming pregnant. Two different kinds of ART refusal are distinguishable: the primary refusal being for financial, psychosocial, moral, ethical and medical reasons including the risk of severe ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome, the risk of multiple pregnancies and the risk of malformations. The secondary refusal includes dropouts after one or more unsuccessful IVF-treatments mainly influenced by the outcome of previous cycles (prognostic factors: oocyte and embryo count, embryo quality, females age) associated with psychological and emotional aspects. However, financial factors seem to be the most potent reasons for ART-refusal.

Keywords

IVF ART refusal Therapy expenses and reimbursement Prognostic factors 

References

  1. 1.
    AIHW National Perinatal Statistics Unit (1992) Assisted Conception. Australia and New Zealand, 1990. Sydney, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    ASRM Practice Committee Report (2000) Multiple pregnancy associated with infertility therapy. Birmingham (AL), ASRMGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ben-Rafael Z, Mashiach S et al (1986) Treatment-independent pregnancy after in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer trial. Fertil Steril 45:564–567PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Beral V, Davis JA et al (1990) Births in Great Britain resulting from assisted conception. BMJ 300:1229–1233PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Berg BJ (1995) Listening to the voices of the infertile. Indiana University Press, BloomingtonGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bollen N, Camus M et al (1991) The incidence of multiple pregnancy after in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer, gamete or zygote infrafallopian transfer. Fertil Steril 55:314–318PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bonduelle M, Wennerholm UB et al (2004) A multi-centre cohort study of the physical health of 5-year old children conceived after intracytoplasmic sperm injection, in vitro fertilization and natural conception. Hum Reprod (in press)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Buckett W, Bentick B (1997) The epidemiology of infertility in a rural population. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 76:233–237PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chandra A, Hervey SE (1998) Impaired fecundity in the United States: 1982–1995. Fam Plann Perspect 30:34–42PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chief Justice Joseph Kennedy (1999) IVF is not a medically necessary treatment. Nova Scotia Surpreme CourtGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Collins JA (2001) Cost-effectiveness of in vitro fertilization. Semin Reprod 19:279–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Collins JA, Rowe TC (1989) Age of the female partner is a prognostic factor in prolonged unexplained infertility: a multicentre study. Fertil Steril 52:15–20PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dalton M, Lilford RJ (1989) Benefits of in vitro fertilization (letter to the editor). Lancet 2:1327PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    De Vries MJ, De Sutter P et al (1999) Prognostic factors in patients continuing in vitro fertilization or intracytoplasmic sperm injection treatment and drop outs. Fertil Steril 72:674–678CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dohle GR, Veeze HJ et al (1999) Teh complex relationships between cystic fibrosis and congenital bilateral absence of the vas deferens: clinical, electrophysiological and genetic data. Hum Reprod 14:371–374CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Donderwinkel PF, van der Vaart H et al (2000) Treatment of patients with long-standing unexplained subfertility with in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril 73:334–337CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ericson A, Kallen B (2001) Congenital malformations in infants born after IVF: a population-based study. Hum Reprod 16:504–509CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Faber K (1997) IVF in the US: multiple gestation, economic competition, and the necessity of excess. Hum Reprod 12:1614–1616PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Fritz MA (2002) Infertility treatment and the multifetal gestation epidemic: too much of a good thing. Cont Obstet Gynecol 47:65–92Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gerris J, De Neubourg D et al (1999) Prevention of twin pregnancy after in vitro fertilization or intracytoplasmic sperm injection based on strict embryo criteria: a prospective randomized clinical trial. Hum Reprod 14:2581–2587CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Goldfarb J, Austin C et al (1997) Factors influencing patients decision not to repeat IVF. J Assist Reprod Genet 14:381–384PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Haney AF, Hughes CL et al (1987) Treatment-independent, treatment-associated, and pregnancies after additional therapy in a program of in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer. Fertil Steril 47:634–638PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hansen M, Kurinczuk JJ et al (2002) The risk of major birth defects after intracytoplasmic sperm injection and in vitro fertilization. N Engl J Med 346:725–730CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Heck KE, Schoendorf KC et al (1997) Delayed childbearing by educational level in the United States. Matern Child Health 1:81–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Howe G, Westhoff C et al (1985) Effects of age, cigarette smoking and other factors on fertility: findings in a large prospective study. Br J Med 290:1697–1700Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hughes EG, Giacomini M (2001) Funding in vitro fertilization treatment for persistent subfertility: the pain and the politics. Fertil Steril 76:431–442CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority (1996) The Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority annual report. LondonGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Jain T, Hornstein MD (2003) To pay or not to pay. Fertil Steril 80:27–29CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Jenkins JM, Mathur RS et al (1995) The management of severe ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 102:2–5PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Jones HW Jr, Cohen J (1999) IFFS Surveillance 98. Fertil Steril 71:1S–34SCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Katalinic A, Rosch C et al (2004) Pregnancy course and outcome after intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI)- a controlled, prospective cohort study. Fertil Steril 81(6):1604-1616CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Katz P, Nachtigall R et al (2002) The economic impact of the assisted reproductive technologies. Natur Cell Biol (Suppl):S29–S32Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Martikainen H, Orava M et al (2004) Day 2 elective single embryo transfer in clinical practice: better outcome in ICSI cycles. Hum Reprod 19:1364–1366CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Martin JA, Hamilton BE et al (2002) Births: final data for 2001. Natl Vital Stat Rep 51:1–102PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Morgan KP (1989) Of woman born? How old-fashioned! New reproductive technologies and women’s oppression. The Women’s Press, TorontoGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Navot D, Bergh PA et al (1992) Ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome in novel reproductive technologies: prevention and treatment. Fertil Steril 58:249–261PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Neumann PJ (1997) Should health insurance cover IVF? Issues and options. J Health Polit Policy Law 22:1215–1237PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Pringle D (1995) Deinsuring medical services: practical or perverse? Annual Meeting of the Canadian Health Economics Research AssociationGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Roh SI, Awadalla SG et al (1987) In vitro fertilization and embryo transfer: treatment-dependent versus -independent pregnancies. Fertil Steril 48:982–986PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Schenker JG, Ezra Y (1994) Complications of assisted reproductive techniques. Fertil Steril 61:411–422PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Segal S, Casper RF (1990) The response to ovarian hyperstimulation and in vitro fertilization in women older than 35 years. Hum Reprod 5:255–257PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Sharma V, Allgar V et al (2002) Factors influencing the cumulative conception rate and discontinuation of in vitro fertilization treatment for infertility. Fertil Steril 78:40–46CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology and The American Society for Reproductive Medicine (1999) Assisted reproductive technology in the United States: 1996 results generated from the American Society for Reproductive Medicine/ Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology Registry. Fertil Steril 71:798–807CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Soliman S, Daya S et al (1993) A randomized trial of in vitro fertilization versus conventional treatment for infertility. Fertil Steril 59:1239–1244PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Templeton A, Fraser C et al (1990) The epidemiology of infertiltiy in Aberdeen. BMJ 301:148–152PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Templeton A, Morris J (1998) Reducing the risk of multiple births by transfer of two embryos after in vitro fertilization. N Engl J Med 339:573–577CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    The American Society for Reproductive Medicine (1999) IFFS Surveillance 98: Chapter 3: ART-the number to transfer. Fertil Steril 71:12S–13SGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Vilska S, Tiitinen A et al (1999) Elective transfer of one embryo results in an acceptable pregnancy rate and eliminates the risk of multiple birth. Hum Reprod 14:2392–2395CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Wennerholm UB, Bergh C et al (2000) Incidence of congenital malformations in children born after ICSI. Hum Reprod 15:944–948CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Westergaard JB, Tranberg AM et al (1999) Danish National In-Vitro Fertilization Registry 1994 and 1995: a controlled study of births, malformations and cytogenetic findings. Hum Reprod 14:1896–1902CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Yoshida A, Tamayama T et al (1995) A cytogenetic survey of 1007 infertile males. Contracept Fertil Sex 23:103aGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyMedical University Schleswig-HolsteinLuebeckGermany
  2. 2.Klinikum Kempten-Oberallgaeu Germany

Personalised recommendations