Oncofertility pp 195-208 | Cite as

Ethical Dilemmas in Oncofertility: An Exploration of Three Clinical Scenarios

  • Clarisa R. Gracia
  • Jorge J.E. Gracia
  • Shasha Chen
Part of the Cancer Treatment and Research book series (CTAR, volume 156)


As an emerging interdisciplinary field, oncofertility bridges oncology, reproductive endocrinology, and infertility with the goal of expanding reproductive options for women with cancer. Oncofertility is currently gaining significant attention from professionals in many related fields and is undergoing considerable scrutiny in part because of the many compelling ethical dilemmas it raises. To illustrate some of the dilemmas providers face, and make suggestions for clinical care, this chapter presents three clinical scenarios encountered in medical practice. An increased awareness of the complex problems involved should help prepare clinicians for some of the challenges posed by this rapidly expanding discipline.


Ethical Dilemma Virtue Ethic Fertility Preservation Premature Ovarian Failure Mixed Connective Tissue Disease 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



This research was supported by the Oncofertility Consortium NIH 8UL1DE019587, 5RL1HD058296.


  1. 1.
    Committee on Bioethics, American Academy of Pediatrics. Informed consent, parental permission, and assent in pediatric practice. Pediatrics. 1995; 95(2):314–7.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kuther TL. Medical decision-making and minors: issues of consent and assent. Adolescence. 2003; 38(150):343–58.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Melton GB, Koocher GP, Saks MJ, Eds. Decision making in children: psychological risks and benefits. Children’s competence to consent. New York: Plenum; 1983:21–40.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Quinn GP, Vadaparampil ST. Fertility preservation and adolescent/young adult cancer patients: physician communication challenges. J Adolesc Health. 2009; 44(4):394–400.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Quinn GP, et al. Patient-physician communication barriers regarding fertility preservation among newly diagnosed cancer patients. Soc Sci Med. 2008; 66(3):784–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Schover LR. Patient attitudes toward fertility preservation. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2009; 53(2):281–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Zebrack BJ, et al. Fertility issues for young adult survivors of childhood cancer. Psychooncology. 2004; 13(10):689–99.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lee SJ, et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology recommendations on fertility preservation in cancer patients. J Clin Oncol. 2006; 24(18):2917–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Akabayashi A, Fetters MD, Elwyn TS. Family consent, communication, and advance directives for cancer disclosure: a Japanese case and discussion. J Med Ethics. 1999; 25(4):296–301.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Tang ST, et al. Congruence of knowledge, experiences, and preferences for disclosure of diagnosis and prognosis between terminally-ill cancer patients and their family caregivers in Taiwan. Cancer Invest. 2006; 24(4):360–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Thomasma D. Telling the truth to patients: a clinical ethics exploration. Camb Q Healthc Ethics. 1994; 3:375–82.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mystakidou K, et al. Cancer information disclosure in different cultural contexts. Support Care Cancer. 2004; 12(3):147–54.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Feldman E. Medical ethics the Japanese way. Hastings Cent Rep. 1985; 15(5):21–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Nisker J, Baylis F, McLeod C. Choice in fertility preservation in girls and adolescent women with cancer. Cancer. 2006; 107(7 Suppl):1686–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jeruss JS, Woodruff TK. Preservation of fertility in patients with cancer. N Engl J Med. 2009; 360(9):902–11.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wallace WH, Anderson RA, Irvine DS. Fertility preservation for young patients with cancer: who is at risk and what can be offered? Lancet Oncol. 2005; 6(4):209–18.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wade N. Clinics hold more embryos than had been thought. NY Times. 2003; 9(24).Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Disposition of abandoned embryos. Fertil Steril. 2004; 82(Suppl 1):S253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Strong C. The moral status of preembryos, embryos, fetuses, and infants. J Med Philos. 1997; 22:457–78.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Samuel S, Ed. Consequentialism and its critics. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1988.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Frosch DL, Kaplan RM. Shared decision making in clinical medicine: past research and future directions. Am J Prev Med. 1999; 17(4):285–94.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Clayman ML, Galvin KM, Arntson P. Shared decision making: fertility and pediatric cancers. Cancer Treat Res. 2007; 138:149–60.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Clarisa R. Gracia
    • 1
  • Jorge J.E. Gracia
    • 2
  • Shasha Chen
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Reproductive Endocrinology and InfertilityUniversity of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphiaUSA
  2. 2.Department of PhilosophyUniversity at BuffaloBuffaloUSA
  3. 3.Haverford CollegeHaverfordUSA

Personalised recommendations