Suchergebnisse

AbstractIntroduction: With increasing life expectancy, couples with at least one partner afflicted with HIV are more commonly pursuing the opportunity to have biologic offspring. Currently, there are no universally accepted recommendations regarding first line reproductive treatments for HIV serodiscordant couples lacking a history of infertility. We strongly believe that fertility care intervention should be the first line treatment, when affordably accessible, over natural conception for HIV serodiscordant couples to achieve pregnancy in a safe and efficacious manner.Discussion: In the era of highly active anti‐retroviral therapy, in combination with timed intercourse and pre‐exposure prophylaxis for the HIV negative partner, some members of the medical community are arguing in favour of natural conception as a means of achieving pregnancy in this patient population. In our opinion, laboratory assisted fertility methods, including intrauterine insemination, in vitro fertilization, and intracytoplasmic sperm injection with semen washing should be the first line treatment recommendation for HIV serodiscordant couples desiring pregnancy for the following reasons: (1) abundance of evidence in the medical literature supporting the safety profile and efficacy of fertility care intervention in couples with HIV; paucity of data addressing safety of natural conception in comparison to fertility intervention techniques (2) unknown public health impact of promoting natural conception as a safe means of achieving pregnancy (3) ethical implications: patients should be offered the available and accessible treatment option posing the lowest possible known risk to the uninfected partner.Conclusions: We believe that physician assisted fertility care, when affordably accessible, should be the treatment of choice over natural conception. While the preliminary data on natural conception in couples using highly active anti‐retroviral therapy/pre‐exposure prophylaxis/timed intercourse appears promising, we believe that this approach should be limited to patients in resource poor settings where more sophisticated measures do not exist or for patients that simply cannot afford subspecialty care. There are likely to be unknown psychological and behavioural factors impacted by promoting natural conception and diminishing the importance of safe sex practices. Additionally, it is our moral obligation to patients to offer the affordably accessible treatment interventions that pose the least known risk when considering reproductive options.

A recent lawsuit that alleges that the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) engages in price-fixing by capping the amount of compensation paid for human oocytes has several critical ethical and policy implications that have received relatively little attention. ASRM has argued that ceilings on donor compensation prevent enticement, exploitation, and oocyte commodification. Critics counter that low donor compensation decreases supply, because fewer women are then interested in donating, which then increases prices for the service that physicians, not donors, accrue, and that ethical goals can be better achieved through enhanced informed consent, hiring egg donor advocates, and better counseling and screening. Yet, if compensation caps are removed, questions emerge concerning what the oocyte market would then look like. Informed consent is an imperfect process. Beyond the legal and economic questions of whether ASRM violates the Sherman Anti-trust Act also lie crucial questions of whether human eggs should be viewed as other products. We argue that human eggs differ from other factory-produced goods and should command moral respect. Although eggs (or embryos) are not equivalent to human beings, they deserve special consideration, because of their potential for human life, and thus have a different moral status. ASRM's current guidelines appear to address, even if imperfectly, ethical challenges that are related to egg procurement for infertility treatment. Given public concerns about oocyte commodification and ASRM's wariness of government regulations, existing guidelines may represent a compromise by aiding patients who seek eggs, while simultaneously trying to avoid undue influence, exploitation, and eugenics. Although the ultimate outcome of this lawsuit remains unclear, policy makers, providers, lawyers, judges, and others should attend seriously to these issues. Alternatives to current ASRM guidelines may be possible (eg, raising the current caps to, say, $12,000 or $15,000, potentially ...

A recent lawsuit that alleges that the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) engages in price-fixing by capping the amount of compensation paid for human oocytes has several critical ethical and policy implications that have received relatively little attention. ASRM has argued that ceilings on donor compensation prevent enticement, exploitation, and oocyte commodification. Critics counter that low donor compensation decreases supply, because fewer women are then interested in donating, which then increases prices for the service that physicians, not donors, accrue, and that ethical goals can be better achieved through enhanced informed consent, hiring egg donor advocates, and better counseling and screening. Yet, if compensation caps are removed, questions emerge concerning what the oocyte market would then look like. Informed consent is an imperfect process. Beyond the legal and economic questions of whether ASRM violates the Sherman Anti-trust Act also lie crucial questions of whether human eggs should be viewed as other products. We argue that human eggs differ from other factory-produced goods and should command moral respect. Although eggs (or embryos) are not equivalent to human beings, they deserve special consideration, because of their potential for human life, and thus have a different moral status. ASRM's current guidelines appear to address, even if imperfectly, ethical challenges that are related to egg procurement for infertility treatment. Given public concerns about oocyte commodification and ASRM's wariness of government regulations, existing guidelines may represent a compromise by aiding patients who seek eggs, while simultaneously trying to avoid undue influence, exploitation, and eugenics. Although the ultimate outcome of this lawsuit remains unclear, policy makers, providers, lawyers, judges, and others should attend seriously to these issues. Alternatives to current ASRM guidelines may be possible (eg, raising the current caps to, say, $12,000 or $15,000, potentially increasing donation, while still avoiding certain ethical difficulties) and warrant close consideration. These complex conflicting ethical issues deserve more attention than they have received because they affect key aspects of clinical practice and the lives of countless patients.

Increasing use of preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) poses numerous clinical, social, psychological, ethical, legal and policy dilemmas, many of which have received little attention. Patients and providers are now considering and using PGD for a widening array of genetic disorders, and patients may increasingly seek 'designer babies.' In the USA, although governmental oversight policies have been discussed, few specific guidelines exist. Hence, increasingly, patients and providers will face challenging ethical and policy questions of when and for whom to use PGD, and how it should be financed. These issues should be better clarified and addressed through collection of data concerning the current use of PGD in the USA, including factors involved in decision making about PGD use, as well as the education of the various communities that are, and should be, involved in its implementation. Improved understanding of these issues will ultimately enhance the development and implementation of future clinical guidelines and policies.