Let us talk about eggs! Professional resistance to elective egg vitrification and gendered medical paternalism

Scientific Contribution

Abstract

In this paper, by applying a feminist bioethical perspective, we identify a new form of medical paternalism that still shapes contemporary legal policies on human egg cryopreservation performed without medical reasons. The fear of negligent, careless women who opt to delay their pregnancy for mere convenience is a widely known gender biased stereotype. Nevertheless, the opinions and judgments of medical professionals on this issue have not yet been sufficiently explored by in-depth research. In this essay, therefore, first we look at the broader bioethical, legal, and social aspects of human egg cryopreservation. In the second part of the paper we discuss a unique qualitative study conducted with professionals working at Hungarian IVF clinics. We argue, based on a bioethical analysis of the collected data, that when new reproduction technologies provide opportunities for women to widen their range of reproductive choices, the traditional forms of medical paternalism can be reinforced by gendered paternalism, as well. We identify several elements of gendered paternalism that characterized the attitudes of the IVF staff and discuss the professionals’ resistance to elective egg freezing and vitrification of eggs for the future. We conclude by suggesting directions for future policy. Although we focus on the Hungarian case in this paper, we are aware that similar attitudes can be observed in some other countries where this technology has become available and requested by women, but where they also face difficulties in their access to it.

Keywords

Oocyte cryopreservation Social freezing Elective egg freezing Social egg freezing Medical paternalism 

References

  1. Baldwin, Kylie, Lorraine Culley, Nicky Hudson, and Helene Mitchell. 2014. Reproductive technology and the life course: Current debates and research in social egg freezing. Human Fertility 17 (3): 170–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bernstein, Stephanie, and Claudia Wiesemann. 2014. Should postponing motherhood via “social freezing” be legally banned? An ethical analysis. Laws 3, (2): 282–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Boldt, Jeffrey. 2011. Current results with slow freezing and vitrification of the human oocyte. Reproductive BioMedicine Online 23 (3): 314–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Braun, Virginia and Victoria Clarke (2006) Using Thematic Analysis in Psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 3, (2): 77–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cattapan, Alana, Kathleen Hammond, Jennie Haw, and Lesley A. Tarasoff. 2014. Breaking the ice: Young feminist scholars of reproductive politics reflect on egg freezing. IJFAB: International Journal of Feminist Approaches to Bioethics 7 (2): 236–247. (Special Issue on Transnational Reproductive Travel, Fall 2014)Google Scholar
  6. Dondorp, Wybo, Guido de Wert, Guido Pennings, Francoise Shenfield, Paul Devroey, Basil C. Tarlatzis, Pere N. Barri, and Klaus Diedrich from ESHRE Task Force on Ethics and Law. 2012. Oocyte cryopreservation for age-related fertility loss. Human Reproduction 27 (5): 1231–1237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dworkin, Gerald. 1976. Paternalism. In Moral problems in medicine, ed. Samuel Gorovitz, Ruth Macklin, Andrew L. Jameton, John M. O’Connor and Susan Sherwin, 185–200. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  8. Evernden, Neil. 1989. Nature in industrial society. In Cultural Politics in Contemporary America, eds. Ian H. Angus, and Sut Jhally, 151–164. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  9. Fadini, R., Dal Canto, M. B., Mignini Renzini, M., Brambillasca, F., Comi, R., Fumagalli, D., Lain, M., Merola, M., Milani, R., and E. De Ponti. 2009. Effect of different gonadotrophin priming on IVM of oocytes from women with normal ovaries: A prospective randomized study. Reproductive BioMedicine Online 19 (3): 343–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Goold, Imogen, and Julian Savulescu. 2009. Favor of freezing eggs for non-medical reasons. Bioethics 23 (1): 47–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gossett, D. R., S. Nayak, S. Bhatt, and S.C. Bailey. 2013. What do healthy women know about the consequences of delayed childbearing? Journal of Health Communication 18 (Supp1): 118–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hashiloni-Dolev, Yael, Amit Kaplan, and Shiri Shkedi-Rafid. 2011. The fertility myth: Israeli students’ knowledge regarding age-related fertility decline and late pregnancies in an era of assisted reproduction technology. Human Reproduction 26 (11): 3045–3053.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hodes-Wertz, B., Druckenmiller, S., Smith, M., and N. Noyes. 2013. What do reproductive-age women who undergo oocyte cryopreservation think about the process as a means to preserve fertility? Fertility and Sterility 100 (5): 1343–1349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Inhorn, Marcia C. 2013. “Women, consider freezing your eggs.” CNN.com, April 9, 2013. http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/09/opinion/inhorn-egg-freezing. Accessed 31 March 2017.
  15. Keglovits, B. 2015. A social egg freezing és a munkaerő-piaci nemegyenlőtlenség kapcsolata. Masters Thesis. Corvinus University, Budapest.Google Scholar
  16. Lallemant, C., D. Vassard, A. Nyboe Andersen, L. Schmidt, and N. Macklon. 2016. Medical and social egg freezing: Internet-based survey of knowledge and attitudes among women in Denmark and the UK. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica 95 (12): 1402–1410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lewis, E.I., S.A. Missmer, L.V. Farland, and E.S. Ginsburg. 2016. Public support in the United States for elective oocyte cryopreservation. Fertility and Sterility 106 (5): 1183–1189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Liu, Kimberly E., and Ellen M. Greenblatt. 2012. Oocyte cryopreservation in Canada: A survey of Canadian ART clinics. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology Canada 34 (3): 250–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lockwood, Gillian M. 2011. Social egg freezing: the prospect of reproductive 'immortality' or a dangerous delusion? Reproductive BioMedicine Online 23 (3): 334–340. doi:10.1016/j.rbmo.2011.05.010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mac Dougall, Kirstin, Yewoubdar Beyene, and Robert D. Nachtigall. 2013. Age shock: Misperceptions of the impact of age on fertility before and after IVF in women who conceived after Age 40. Human Reproduction 28 (2): 350–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Martin, Lauren Jade. 2010. Anticipating infertility: Egg freezing, genetic preservation, and risk. Gender and Society 24 (4), 526–545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Mertes, Heidi, and Guido Pennings. 2011. Social egg freezing: For better, not for worse. Reproductive Biomedicine Online 23 (7): 824–829.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mesen, T. B., J. E. Mersereau, J. B. Kane, and A. Z. Steiner. 2015. Optimal timing for elective egg freezing. Fertility and sterility 103 (6): 1551–1556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Mohapatra, Seema. 2014. Using egg freezing to extend the biological clock: Fertility insurance or false hope? Harvard Law and Policy Review 8 (2): 381–411.Google Scholar
  25. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). 2016. OECD Family Database, Indicator SF2.1, “Fertility Rates”. https://www.oecd.org/els/family/SF_2_1_Fertility_rates.pdf. Accessed 31 March 2017.
  26. Paksi, V., and Szalma Ivett. 2009. Age norms of childbearing. early, ideal and late childbearing in European Countries. Review of Sociology of the Hungarian Sociological Association 2: 57–80.Google Scholar
  27. Papadopoulou, Lina, ed. 2015. (In)Fertile citizens anthropological and legal challenges of assisted reproduction technologies. Athens: Alexandria Publications, 23–39.Google Scholar
  28. Patrizio, P., E. Molinari, and A. Caplan. 2016. Ethics of medical and nonmedical oocyte cryopreservation. Current Opinion in Endocrinology, Diabetes and Obesity 23 (6): 470–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Sándor, Judit. 2014. Hibernált anyaság, avagy mit tehet a sejt? Magyar Narancs 2014/47. Available in Hungarian at http://magyarnarancs.hu/egotripp/hibernalt-anyasag-avagy-mit-tehet-a-sejt-92678. Accessed 15 Mar 2017.
  30. Scharle, Á. 2015. Attitudes to gender roles in the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland. Hungary: Budapest Institute and Institute of Economics.Google Scholar
  31. Schuman, L., G. Witkin, K. Copperman, and M. Acosta-La Greca. 2011. Psychology of egg freezing patients: Would they consider single motherhood? Fertility and Sterility 96 (Suppl 3): S206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Schuman, L., G. Witkin, K. Copperman, M. Acosta, J. Barritt, and A. Copperman. 2012. Women pursing non-medical oocyte cryopreservation share information about their treatment with family and friends. Fertility and Sterility 97 (Suppl 3) S12–S13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sobotka, T. 2004. Postponement of childbearing and low fertility in Europe. Doctoral Thesis, University of Groningen.Google Scholar
  34. Soliman, H. H., A. A. Khaki, T. Al-Azawi, and S. Al-Hasani. 2012. Oocyte cryopreservation, will it be a real social choice and family solution? Middle East Fertility Society Journal 17 (1): 8–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Stoop, Dominic, Julie Nekkebroeck, and Paul Devroey. 2011. A survey on the intentions and attitudes towards oocyte cryopreservation for non-medical reasons among women of reproductive age. Human Reproduction 26 (3): 655–661.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Stoop, Dominic, Fulco van der Veen, Michel Deneyer, Julie Nekkebroeck, and Herman Tournaye. 2014. Oocyte banking for anticipated gamete exhaustion (age) is a preventive intervention, neither social, nor nonmedical. Reproductive BioMedicine Online 28 (5): 548–551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Stoop, Dominic, Elise Maes, and Nikolaos P. Polyzos, Greta Verheyen, Herman Tournaye, and Julie Nekkebroeck. 2015. Does oocyte banking for anticipated gamete exhaustion influence future relational and reproductive choices? A follow-up of bankers and non-bankers. Human Reproduction 30 (2): 338–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Szalma, Ivett. 2010. Attitűdök a házasságról és a gyermekvállalásról [Attitudes towards Marriage and Childbearing]. Demográfia 53 (1): 38–66.Google Scholar
  39. Szalma, Ivett, and Judit Takács. 2016. Gyermektelenség Magyarországon: Mítoszok és kutatási eredmények [Childlessness in Hungary: Myths and research results]. Magyar Tudomány 177 (2): 159–167.Google Scholar
  40. Tan, Shu Qi, Andy Wei Keat Tan, Matthew Sie Kuei Lau, Heng Hao Tan, and Sadhana Nadarajah. 2014. Social oocyte freezing: A survey among singaporean female medical students. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Research 40 (5): 1345–1352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. The Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine and The Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology. 2013. Mature oocyte cryopreservation: A guideline. Fertility and Sterility 99 (1): 37–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Vallejo, V., J.A. Lee, L. Schuman, G. Witkin, E. Cervantes, B. Sandler, and A.B. Copperman. 2013. Social and psychological assessment of women undergoing elective oocyte cryopreservation: A seven-year analysis. Open Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 3: 1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Vicsek, L. 2017. Fertility myths, technology myths and their sources – Lay reasoning on age-related fertility decline. Budapest: manuscript.Google Scholar
  44. Waldby, Catherine. 2015. ‘Banking time’: Egg freezing and the negotiation of future fertility. Culture, Health, and Sexuality 17 (4): 470–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Wennberg, Anna-Lena, and Kenny A. Rodriguez-Wallberg, Ian Milsom, and Mats Brännström. 2016. Attitudes towards new assisted reproductive technologies in Sweden: A survey in women 30–39 years of age. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica 95 (1): 38–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Witkin, Georgia, Ann Tran, Joseph A. Lee, Lisa Schuman, Lawrence Grunfeld, and Jaime M. Knopman. 2013. What makes a woman freeze: The impetus behind patients’ desires to undergo elective oocyte cryopreservation. Fertility and Sterility 100 (3): S24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Yu, L., B. Peterson, Marcia C. Inhorn, J. K. Boehm, and P. Patrizio. 2016. Knowledge, attitudes, and intentions toward fertility awareness and oocyte cryopreservation among obstetrics and gynecology resident physicians. Human Reproduction 31 (2): 403–411.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Political ScienceLegal Studies and Gender Studies of the Central European University (CEU)BudapestHungary
  2. 2.Institute of Sociology and Social PolicyCorvinus University of BudapestBudapestHungary
  3. 3.Institute of Sociology and Social PolicyCorvinus University of BudapestBudapestHungary

Personalised recommendations