Unconventional combinations of prospective parents: ethical challenges faced by IVF providers

Assisted reproductive technology: Short- and long-term outcomes

Assisted reproductive technology (ART) includes fertility treatment in which either eggs or embryos are handled outside a female's body to promote successful pregnancies and healthy offspring. Current ART procedures encompass in vitro fertilization with or without intracytoplasmic sperm injection. The most common complication of ART is related to the consequences of multiple pregnancy, which can be prevented or minimized by reducing the number of embryos transferred to the uterus, commonly single embryo transfer. ART has been shown to be variably associated with adverse short- and long-term perinatal outcomes, including cerebral palsy, autism, neurodevelopmental imprinting disorders, and cancer. However, there is uncertainty as to whether reported problems are related to the ART procedure itself, to factors related to infertility, to other medical and environmental factors, or a combination thereof. From a pathophysiological perspective, whether ART alters epigenetic mechanisms of gene expression, leading to later developmental, medical, and behavioral disorders, is an area of active investigation. With the meticulously conducted short- and long-term outcome studies completed so far, overall, and after controlling for multiple gestations and preterm delivery, the results suggest that ART is a safe procedure, offering hope to many parent(s) wishing for a healthy child. This paper highlights ART methods and the risk factors and confounders in the interpretation of short- and long-term outcome data, providing the reader with a means to evaluate findings and conclusions of outcome studies. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: Assisted reproductive technology (ART) is a relatively safe procedure. Single embryo implantation optimizes outcome. Informed consent, including the risks and benefits of ART, should be required. Ongoing longitudinal studies are necessary to fully understand ART outcomes.

Defining ethical challenge(s) in healthcare research: a rapid review

BACKGROUND

Despite its ubiquity in academic research, the phrase 'ethical challenge(s)' appears to lack an agreed definition. A lack of a definition risks introducing confusion or avoidable bias. Conceptual clarity is a key component of research, both theoretical and empirical. Using a rapid review methodology, we sought to review definitions of 'ethical challenge(s)' and closely related terms as used in current healthcare research literature.

METHODS

Rapid review to identify peer-reviewed reports examining 'ethical challenge(s)' in any context, extracting data on definitions of 'ethical challenge(s)' in use, and synonymous use of closely related terms in the general manuscript text. Data were analysed using content analysis. Four databases (MEDLINE, Philosopher's Index, EMBASE, CINAHL) were searched from April 2016 to April 2021.

RESULTS

393 records were screened, with 72 studies eligible and included: 53 empirical studies, 17 structured reviews and 2 review protocols. 12/72 (17%) contained an explicit definition of 'ethical challenge(s), two of which were shared, resulting in 11 unique definitions. Within these 11 definitions, four approaches were identified: definition through concepts; reference to moral conflict, moral uncertainty or difficult choices; definition by participants; and challenges linked to emotional or moral distress. Each definition contained one or more of these approaches, but none contained all four. 68/72 (94%) included studies used terms closely related to synonymously refer to 'ethical challenge(s)' within their manuscript text, with 32 different terms identified and between one and eight different terms mentioned per study.

CONCLUSIONS

Only 12/72 studies contained an explicit definition of 'ethical challenge(s)', with significant variety in scope and complexity. This variation risks confusion and biasing data analysis and results, reducing confidence in research findings. Further work on establishing acceptable definitional content is needed to inform future bioethics research.

Iranian model of decision making to use surrogacy: A grounded theory Study

Identifying the process of making the decision to use a surrogate mother can create a broad knowledge of this concept. In this grounded theory study, participants were selected through snowball sampling method and obtaining an informed consent, in-depth interviews were conducted face to face and recorded. Then, all the interviews, field notes, and memos were analyzed using Strauss-Corbin 1998 method. Analysis of the statements of the participants boiled down to 487 initial codes, 311 codes, 14 subcategories, and six categories. In the conceptual model of this process, "the hope to have a child" was an influential concept that interacted with other concepts.

Dual consent? Donors' and recipients' views about involvement in decision-making on the use of embryos created by gamete donation in research

BACKGROUND

Reasonable disagreement about the role awarded to gamete donors in decision-making on the use of embryos created by gamete donation (EGDs) for research purposes emphasises the importance of considering the implementation of participatory, adaptive, and trustworthy policies and guidelines for consent procedures. However, the perspectives of gamete donors and recipients about decision-making regarding research with EGDs are still under-researched, which precludes the development of policies and guidelines informed by evidence. This study seeks to explore the views of donors and recipients about who should take part in consent processes for the use of EGDs in research.

METHODS

From July 2017 to June 2018, 72 gamete donors and 175 recipients completed a self-report structured questionnaire at the Portuguese Public Bank of Gametes (response rate: 76%). Agreement with dual consent was defined as the belief that the use of EGDs in research should be consented by both donors and recipients.

RESULTS

The majority of participants (74.6% of donors and 65.7% of recipients) were willing to donate embryos for research. Almost half of the donors (48.6%) and half of the recipients (46.9%) considered that a dual consent procedure is desirable. This view was more frequent among employed recipients (49.7%) than among non-employed (21.4%). Donors were less likely to believe that only recipients should be involved in giving consent for the use of EGDs in research (25.0% vs. 41.7% among recipients) and were more frequently favourable to the idea of exclusive donors' consent (26.4% vs. 11.4% among recipients).

CONCLUSIONS

Divergent views on dual consent among donors and recipients indicate the need to develop evidence-based and ethically sustainable policies and guidelines to protect well-being, autonomy and reproductive rights of both stakeholder groups. More empirical research and further theoretical normative analyses are needed to inform people-centred policy and guidelines for shared decision-making concerning the use of EGDs for research.

Surrogacy and ethics in women with cancer

Women diagnosed with gynaecological cancer may face unwanted loss of fertility as well as all the other life-changing issues with which cancer and its treatments are associated. The decision to harvest and store gametes has to be made before commencement of treatment, and advances in these techniques have made this successful. Fertility sparing therefore must be discussed and offered at an early stage post diagnosis. Surrogacy is currently an evidence-based method of assisted reproduction, with mainly desirable outcomes for the commissioning mother, surrogate and child, without impacting on the cancer treatment and long-term survival. Surrogacy is therefore ethical as long as the autonomous rights of both the commissioning mother and gestational carrier are equally observed, they both have equal legal protection and due attention is paid to the short- and long-term welfare of any resulting offspring.

Women With Mental Illness Seeking Assisted Reproduction Considerations in Ethical Candidate Selection

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review aims to provide guidance to clinicians facing requests for assisted reproduction from women with mental illness.

RECENT FINDINGS

The paper explores the clinical and safety aspects of initiating fertility treatment in this context, including the use of psychotropic medication and the risk of untreated psychiatric mood or psychotic disorders. It also presents the ethical considerations involved in candidate selection, including treating similar cases equitably to avoid biased decisions based solely on "gut-feelings," respect for women's reproductive autonomy, and an effort to protect patients and prospective fetuses/children from harm by employing optimal strategies regarding medication and psychosocial support. Clinicians ought to be informed regarding recent evidence related to the safety and efficacy of psychopharmacologic treatment of women during pregnancy and the post-partum. They should also carry out a thoughtful ethical analysis to ensure minimal violation of women's reproductive autonomy.

Impediments to communication and relationships between infertility care providers and patients

BACKGROUND

Infertility patients generally see provider-patient communication and relationships as important, but as often insufficient, raising critical questions regarding why these gaps persist, and how they might best be addressed.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews of approximately one hour each were conducted with 37 ART providers and patients (17 physicians, 10 other health providers, and 10 patients) and were thematically analyzed.

RESULTS

Patients see clinicians' interactions as ranging widely from good to bad, related to several specific barriers and factors. Patients and providers may differ in their physical and emotional experiences, expectations concerning treatment outcomes and uncertainties, and time frames and finances, generating dynamic processes and tensions. Characteristics of particular providers, clinics and patients can also vary. Infertility patients tend to find only one outcome acceptable - a "take home baby" - rather than partial success, as is the case with many other diseases. Yet most IVF cycles fail. Many patients must pay considerable out-of-pocket expenses for infertility treatment, exacerbating disappointments and frustrations. Providers often work in competitive, entrepreneurial markets, and "hype" their potential success. After treatment failures, providers may feel guilty and withdraw from patients. Yet these behaviors can antagonize patients more than physicians realize, aggravating patient stresses. Several providers described how they understood patients' needs and perceptions more fully only after becoming infertility patients themselves. Interactions with not only physicians, but other providers (e.g., nurses and staff) can play key roles. Patients may be willing to understand these impediments, but providers often communicate these obstacles and reasons poorly or not at all, furthering tensions.

CONCLUSIONS

These data, the first to examine several critical aspects of challenges that infertility providers and patients face in communication and relationships, suggest that several key dynamic processes and factors may be involved, and need to be addressed. While prior research has shown that infertility patients value, but often feel disappointed in relationships with clinicians, the present data highlight several specific impediments, and thus have critical implications for future practice, research, guidelines and education.

Gatekeepers for infertility treatment? Views of ART providers concerning referrals by non-ART providers

Many patients who might benefit from treatment using assisted reproductive technology (ART) do not receive it, raising critical questions of why, and how best to overcome existing barriers. In-depth interviews of approximately 1 h each were conducted with 27 ART providers (17 physicians and 10 other healthcare providers). These interviewees suggest that non-ART providers may serve as gatekeepers in a complex system, involving not only individual-level, but also dyadic and institutional, processes and factors related to provider-patient relationships. Differences emerge concerning 'who' refers patients for ART (e.g. what types of provider), 'how' (amount, type and specificity of information offered), 'when' (delayed or not) and 'why or why not', and how patients respond to referrals, once made. At least seven types of clinician (general practitioners, obstetricians/gynaecologists, paediatricians, geneticists, psychologists and oncologists) may refer patients. Barriers to referral include indistinct boundaries between specialties and provider discomfort discussing reproduction and sex. These data, the first to explore dynamic factors and processes related to provider-patient relationships and interactions in referrals of patients for ART, suggest several key issues (e.g. non-ART providers' roles as gatekeepers), and implications for future education, practice, guidelines and research, highlighting a research agenda, and the need for targeted education for different groups of clinicians.

How Infertility Patients and Providers View and Confront Religious and Spiritual Issues

Questions arise concerning whether and how religion affects infertility treatment decisions. Thirty-seven infertility providers and patients were interviewed. Patients confront religious, spiritual, and metaphysical issues coping with treatment failures and religious opposition from clergy and others. Religion can provide meaning and support, but poses questions and objections that patients may try to avoid or negotiate-e.g., concealing treatment or changing clergy. Differences exist within and between religions. Whether and how much providers discuss these issues with patients varies. These data, the first to examine several key aspects of how infertility providers and patients confront religious/spiritual issues, have important implications for practice, research, guidelines, and education.

Infertility providers' and patients' views and experiences concerning doctor shopping in the USA

Many questions arise concerning how infertility patients decide whether, how much and why or why not to consult more than one doctor and change physicians. To explore this issue, a total of 37 US in vitro fertilization (IVF) providers and patients were interviewed in-depth. Many infertility patients feel disappointed with infertility providers, especially after treatment failure, and then struggle to evaluate and weigh relative 'bedside manner' against technical skills, finances and hope, facing dilemmas of which doctor to choose, whether and how much, to 'shop around', how to do so, and whether and how much to give doctors 'second chances'. Complex, dynamic processes can ensue: shopping for initial or subsequent physicians and consulting and/or changing doctors multiple times, based on differing treatment approaches. Patients may alter perceptions of physicians over time. Providers are often busy and have difficulty addressing patients' emotional stresses; and may provide providing 'false hope', and/or criticize colleagues' approaches. These data, the first to explore how infertility patients decide whether, how and why to consult with more than one infertility doctor, suggest that patients may 'doctor shop,', engaging in dynamic processes, wrestling to weigh communication vs. other skills. These data have important implications for future practice, research, guidelines and education.

"Will they be good enough parents?": Ethical dilemmas, views, and decisions among assisted reproductive technology (ART) providers

BACKGROUND

Many adults may make less-than-ideal parents, but important ethical questions arise concerning whether assisted reproductive technology (ART) providers should thus ever refuse treatment to certain patients, and if so, when, and how to decide.

METHODS

In-depth interviews of approximately 1 hour each were conducted with 27 ART providers (17 physicians, and 10 other health providers).

RESULTS

Clinicians often struggle with whether to attempt to assess and predict patients' potential future parenting abilities, and if so, how, and how to proceed if doubts arise. Providers face profound ethical tensions between adults' rights to reproduce and best interests of the eventual children (i.e., to be born into "stable" homes), and questions about the extent of professional responsibilities toward potential parents versus toward future offspring. Providers generally feel uncomfortable with this role, and hence don't want it, partly since they lack training for it, but also because of inherent empirical and ethical uncertainties. Concerns about discrimination based on the mere presence or history of certain diagnoses or traits (e.g., single marital status or past depression) also arise. Clinicians frequently seek to resolve these tensions through various strategies-for example, referring these decisions to others; hoping that patients drop out of treatment; assessing and increasing social support (e.g., arranging for possible co-parents); assisting the patient psychotherapeutically; or seeking to communicate concerns to patients only indirectly or implicitly. Clinics vary in how they make and approach these decisions-whether they rely on a formal ethics or other committee.

CONCLUSIONS

These data, the first to explore several critical aspects of in vitro fertilization (IVF) providers' views and decision making about assessing the quality of patients' potential future parenting, have critical implications for future practice, education, research, and guidelines. Further empirical and normative scholarship and guidelines are needed to help clarify expectations, processes, and possible approaches to aid providers and patients.