Oncofertility pp 381-388 | Cite as

For the Sake of Consistency and Fairness: Why Insurance Companies Should Cover Fertility Preservation Treatment for Iatrogenic Infertility

  • Lisa Campo-Engelstein
Part of the Cancer Treatment and Research book series (CTAR, volume 156)


There is much debate not only about the morality of assisted reproductive technologies (ART) but also about how they should be classified. Should ART be understood as medical treatment for a disease (infertility) or should they be relegated to boutique medicine where they are seen as elective? How we answer this question affects our thoughts about whether ART should be covered by insurance companies. Those who claim infertility is a medical disease usually advocate that ART be covered by insurance. Conversely, those who believe ART are elective procedures generally oppose insurance coverage, insisting that insurance coverage should be limited to medically necessary treatments. While the debate cannot simply be reduced to whether “real” diseases should be covered by insurance and all other conditions should not, in the minds of many, a strong connection exists between what is considered a disease and what insurance should cover.


Assisted Reproductive Technology Fertility Preservation Infertility Treatment Ovarian Tissue Cryopreservation Breast Asymmetry 
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. I would like to thank Chava Blivaiss for the research she did that informed parts of this chapter. Also, I would like to thank the Oncofertility Consortium members and the attendants of the conference “Oncofertility: Reflections from the Humanities and Social Sciences” for their valuable feedback.


  1. 1.
    Goold I, Savulescu J. In favour of freezing eggs for non-medical reasons. Bioethics. 1999; 23(1):47–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Stavrou D, Weissman O, Polyniki A, Papageorgiou N, Haik J, Farber N, Winkler E. Quality of life after breast cancer surgery with or without reconstruction. Eplasty. 2009; 9:e18.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dreger AD. Ambiguous sex–or ambivalent medicine? Ethical problems in the treatment of intersexuality. The Hastings Cent Rep. 1998; 28(3):24–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Murphy D. Concepts of disease and health. In: Zalta EN, Ed. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy; 2008. Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Preamble to the Constitution of the World Health Organization as adopted by the International Health Conference, New York, 19 June–22 July, 1946.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    United States Department of Labor. Your Rights After A Mastectomy…Women’s Health & Cancer Rights Act of 1998. June 26, 2009.
  7. 7.
    ASRM: State Infertility Insurance Laws. ASRM: Infertility, Reproduction, Menopause, Andrology, Endometriosis, Diagnosis and Treatment.
  8. 8.
    The Harvard Law Review Association. In vitro fertilization: insurance and consumer protection. Harvard Law Rev. 1996; 109(9):2092–109.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fertile Hope. FAQs. fertility-info/faqs-women.cfm
  10. 10.
    Leslie M. Melting opposition to egg freezing. Science. 2007; 316:388–389.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rawls J. A theory of justice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press; 2005.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lee SJ, et al. American society of clinical oncology recommendations on fertility preservation in cancer patients. J Clin Oncol. 2006; 24(16):2917–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Oncofertility Consortium and Center for Bioethics, Science & Society, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern UniversityChicagoUSA

Personalised recommendations