Fertility treatment can be costly and burdensome financially, while noneconomic barriers prevent some patients from seeking care.
Insurance mandates may help to overcome some of these hurdles; however, such laws may fail to reach those most in need of treatment.
Embryo Transfer
Embryo transfer is an IVF procedure in which embryos are implanted into the uterus using ultrasound for precision. Your physician will insert a catheter into your vagina, insert one or more embryo(s), squirt them out, withdraw and check under microscope to make sure there are no left over embryo(s).
Transferring embryos typically depends on both a woman’s age and number of eggs she collected; however, many health care professionals also employ specific guidelines designed to prevent multiple pregnancies; for example transferring only two embryos for women under 38 and three or more for those over 40.
Before embarking on an IVF treatment, particularly embryo transfer procedures, it is crucial to carefully consider your ethical stances. Some individuals feel it unethical to interfere with natural conception processes while others believe having children is of paramount importance and they don’t mind using any means necessary to reach this goal.
Insurance coverage of assisted reproductive technology treatments is another ethical concern. While some states mandate coverage through insurance policies, these mandates don’t reach enough men and women who need coverage; furthermore, social stigmas regarding who should receive fertility care can dissuade individuals from seeking help.
Embryo Storage
Cryopreserving embryos not used immediately in treatment is an option available to couples looking for fertility solutions or donation. Cryopreservation typically occurs at either the cleavage or blastocyst stages before being protected with a cryoprotective agent – couples considering this path should discuss it with a clinic so they are clear on its legal and ethical ramifications before proceeding with this decision.
Respecting individual choice when disposing of cryopreserved embryos is a fundamental ethical principle; however, it may be impractical for programs or facilities to store embryos that have not yet been collected by their patients for use. Destruction of such embryos often causes deep feelings of regret among doctors; legal regulations however may allow such actions should no one come forward with an expressed desire for keeping them.
Typically, medical ethics embodied by four ethical principles of beneficence, nonmaleficence, justice and respect for patient autonomy should serve as guides. This holds especially true when considering assisted reproductive technology (ART). Unfortunately, its challenges can often be more daunting to navigate; even well-intentioned government interventions into ART techniques haven’t always proven successful at meeting some of its ethical challenges; insurance mandates haven’t proved particularly successful at creating equal access.
IVF Procedures
Medical ethics rests upon four pillars: beneficence, nonmaleficence, respect for patient autonomy and justice. When dealing with fertility issues however, these principles become compromised due to involvement not just of patients but also future beings who will exist prior to consulting on fertility matters.
So it is not surprising that ethical considerations surrounding fertility treatment can be complex and can differ depending on which country one resides in. Some nations provide formal legal frameworks while others rely on official guidelines as ways to address such matters.
As evidence of this is seen by how various societal norms and values influence people’s attitudes about fertility treatments‘ ethics. Older than younger respondents tend to hold stronger negative views towards IVF techniques due to them potentially producing children unrelated biologically to either parent.
Fertility treatments that rely on embryo donation or surrogacy raise ethical concerns that extend far beyond their immediate medical relevance. Utilization of embryos donated from third parties raises issues related to life and rights for unborn children as well as whether ownership should belong with either donor or clinic performing the transfer procedure.
Multiple fertilisation raises ethical concerns as multiple eggs are fertilised to increase chances of pregnancy, increasing the likelihood that two or more fetuses may form, potentially leading to premature birth and low birth weight outcomes.
Abortion
State laws increasingly mandate private insurers to offer comprehensive or near-comprehensive infertility diagnosis and treatment coverage, helping reduce cost barriers while possibly restricting patient access to infertility care. While such mandates could have positive outcomes, unintended ramifications could limit access.
People undergoing IVF often create several embryos from either their own genetic material or donor material in hopes that one or more will “take,” leading to a healthy pregnancy. Sometimes multiple embryos take, leading to twin pregnancies which are particularly challenging. When this occurs, doctors usually recommend selective reduction, which involves eliminating embryos that have lower chances of surviving and leading to successful pregnancies; this procedure could constitute abortion under some state abortion bans or personhood amendments; doctors can then perform selective reduction.
State abortion bans that define life as beginning at fertilization and legitimize fertilized eggs as persons pose a clear danger to IVF treatments, according to their wording and interpretation. Doctors fear these state laws could limit fertility treatment by making embryonic testing illegal – such as preimplantation genetic testing (PGT) which helps select optimal embryos for implantation – while fines or jail sentences could threaten practitioners.
