Advertisement

Common Ethical Issues in Oncofertility

Chapter
  • 329 Downloads

Abstract

This chapter examines some of the ethical concerns that arise in the interdisciplinary field of oncofertility. Specifically, I will address three commonly asked ethical questions: (1) Who should be offered fertility preservation? (2) Who should pay for fertility preservation? and (3) How should disputes over frozen gametes, embryos, and gonadal tissue (collectively referred to as reproductive material) be resolved and prevented? Unfortunately, there are not always easy and universal answers to these questions. As with other aspects of patient care, we need to consider each patient and make a case-by-case judgment.

Keywords

Ethics Oncofertility Access Insurance Coverage Disputes 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the Oncofertility Consortium NIH/NICHD

5UL1DE019587.

References

  1. 1.
    Access to fertility services by transgender persons: an ethics committee opinion. Fertil Steril. 2015;104(5):1111–5.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2015.08.021
  2. 2.
    Access to fertility treatment by gays, lesbians, and unmarried persons: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril. 2013;100(6):1524–7.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2013.08.042
  3. 3.
    Amato PR, Patterson S, Beattie B. Single-parent households and children’s educational achievement: a state-level analysis. Soc Sci Res. 2015;53:191–202.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2015.05.012.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Basco D, Campo-Engelstein L, Rodriguez S. Insuring against infertility: expanding state infertility mandates to include fertility preservation technology for cancer patients. J Law Med Ethics. 2010;38(4):832–9.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-720X.2010.00536.x.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bos HMW, Balen FV, Boom DCVD. Lesbian families and family functioning: an overview. Patient Educ Couns. 2005;59(3):263–75.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2004.10.006.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Campo-Engelstein L. Consistency in insurance coverage for iatrogenic conditions resulting from cancer treatment including fertility preservation. J Clin Oncol. 2010a;28(8):1284–6. JCO.2009.25.6883 [pii].  https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2009.25.6883.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Campo-Engelstein L. For the sake of consistency and fairness: why insurance companies should cover fertility preservation treatment for iatrogenic infertility. Cancer Treat Res. 2010b;156:381–8.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-6518-9_29.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Campo-Engelstein L. Gametes or organs? How should we legally classify ovaries used for transplantation in the USA? J Med Ethics. 2011;37(3):166–70. jme.2010.038588 [pii].  https://doi.org/10.1136/jme.2010.038588.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Caplan AL, Patrizio P. Are you ever too old to have a baby? The ethical challenges of older women using infertility services. Semin Reprod Med. 2010;28(4):281–6.  https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0030-1255175.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Center PR. A survey of LGBT Americans. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center; 2013.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Chambers GM, Sullivan EA, Ishihara O, Chapman MG, Adamson GD. The economic impact of assisted reproductive technology: a review of selected developed countries. Fertil Steril. 2009;91(6):2281–94. S0015-0282(09)00873-5 [pii].  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2009.04.029.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dunson DB, Baird DD, Colombo B. Increased infertility with age in men and women. Obstet Gynecol. 2004;103(1):51–6.  https://doi.org/10.1097/01.AOG.0000100153.24061.45. 103/1/51 [pii]CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Elster NR. Assisted reproductive technologies: contracts, consents, and controversies. Am J Fam Law. 2005;18(4):193–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Posthumous collection and use of reproductive tissue: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril. 2013;99(7):1842–5.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2013.02.022.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Female age-related fertility decline. Committee Opinion No. 589. Fertil Steril. 2014;101(3):633–4.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2013.12.032.
  16. 16.
    Finlayson C, Johnson EK, Chen D, Dabrowski E, Gosiengfiao Y, Campo-Engelstein L, Rosoklija I, Jacobson J, Shnorhavorian M, Pavone ME, Moravek MB, Bonifacio HJ, Simons L, Hudson J, Fechner PY, Gomez-Lobo V, Kadakia R, Shurba A, Rowell E, Woodruff TK. Proceedings of the working group session on fertility preservation for individuals with gender and sex diversity. Transgender Health. 2016;1(1):99–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Forman DL. Embryo disposition and divorce: why clinic consent forms are not the answer. J Am Acad Matrimonial Lawyers. 2011;24:57-105.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Frans E, McGrath J, Sandin S, Lichtenstein P, Reichenberg A, Langstrom N, Hultman C. Advanced paternal and grand paternal age and schizophrenia: a three-generation perspective. Schizophr Res. 2011;133:120–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Fuselier BM. The trouble with putting all of your eggs in one basket: using a property rights model to resolve disputes over cryopreserved pre-embryos. Tex J Civ Lib Civ Rights. 2009;14(2):143–91.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Garrido N, Bellver J, Remohi J, Simon C, Pellicer A. Cumulative live-birth rates per total number of embryos needed to reach newborn in consecutive in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycles: a new approach to measuring the likelihood of IVF success. Fertil Steril. 2011;96(1):40–6. S0015-0282(11)00763-1 [pii].  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2011.05.008.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hardcastle R. Law and the human body: property rights, ownership and control. North America: Hart Publishing; 2007.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hecht v. Superior Court CAt, 59 Cal.Rptr. 222 (2d Dist. 1996).Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Howell SD. The frozen embryo: scholarly theories, case law, and proposed state regulation. DePaul J Health Care Law. 2013;14(3):407-440.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kindregan CP, Snyder SH. Clarifying the law of ART: the new American Bar association model act governing assisted reproductive technology. Fam Law Q. 2008;42(2):203–29.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lee SJ, Schover LR, Partridge AH, Patrizio P, Wallace WH, Hagerty K, Beck LN, Brennan LV, Oktay K. American Society of Clinical Oncology recommendations on fertility preservation in cancer patients. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24(18):2917–31.  https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2006.06.5888.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    LIVESTRONG LIVESTRONG Fertility. https://www.livestrong.org/we-can-help/livestrong-fertility. Accessed 4 Feb 2018.
  27. 27.
    Maltaris T, Boehm D, Dittrich R, Seufert R, Koelbl H. Reproduction beyond cancer: a message of hope for young women. Gynecol Oncol. 2006;103(3):1109–21.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2006.08.003.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Mature oocyte cryopreservation: a guideline. Fertil Steril. 2013;99(1):37–43.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2012.09.028
  29. 29.
    National Organ Transplantation Act U.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Parner E, Baron-Cohen S, Lauritsen M, Jorgensen M, Schieve L, Yeargin-Allsopp M, Obel C. Parental age and autism spectrum disorders. Ann Epidemiol. 2012;22(3):143–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Pennings G, de Wert G, Shenfield F, Cohen J, Devroey P, Tarlatzis B. ESHRE task force on ethics and law 11: posthumous assisted reproduction. Hum Reprod. 2006;21(12):3050–3.  https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/del287.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Pew Research Center. The decline of marriage and rise of new families. Washington, DC; 2010.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Quinn GP, Stearsman DK, Campo-Engelstein L, Murphy D. Preserving the right to future children: an ethical case analysis. Am J Bioeth. 2012;12(6):38–43.  https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2012.673688.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Quinn GP, Vadaparampil ST, Jacobsen PB, Knapp C, Keefe DL, Bell GE. Frozen hope: fertility preservation for women with cancer. J Midwifery Womens Health. 2010;55(2):175–80.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmwh.2009.07.009.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Robinson BE. Birds do it. Bees do it. So why not sigle women and lesbians? Bioethics. 1997;11(3&4):217–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Saito K, Suzuki K, Iwasaki A, Yumura Y, Kubota Y. Sperm cryopreservation before cancer chemotherapy helps in the emotional battle against cancer. Cancer. 2005;104(3):521–4.  https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.21185.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Smith K. Cost of fertility preservation treatment at Northwestern University; 2018.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Waldfogel J, Craigie T-A, Brooks-Gunn J. Fragile families and child wellbeing. Future Child/Cent Future Child David Lucile Packard Found. 2010;20(2):87–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Women’s Health and Cancer Rights Act (WHCRA). The center for consumer information & insurance oversight U.S. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Alden March Bioethics Institute and Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyAlbany Medical CollegeAlbanyUSA

Personalised recommendations