In defense of in vitro fertilization: time to get involved in state-level advocacy!

IF 6.6 1区 医学 Q1 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY Fertility and sterility Pub Date : 2024-12-01 Epub Date: 2024-10-22 DOI:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2024.10.018
Albert L Hsu, Elizabeth J Carr, Jessie Losch, Susan Crockin, J Preston Parry
{"title":"In defense of in vitro fertilization: time to get involved in state-level advocacy!","authors":"Albert L Hsu, Elizabeth J Carr, Jessie Losch, Susan Crockin, J Preston Parry","doi":"10.1016/j.fertnstert.2024.10.018","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>We share experiences in advocating to defend in vitro fertilization (IVF) in Virginia, Missouri, and Mississippi; provide historical context on the \"Personhood\" anti-IVF movement; and discuss why \"embryo donation\" is a more accurate term than \"embryo adoption.\" Some individuals and communities have a deeply held belief that a fertilized oocyte is a very early human life, and we will likely never change their minds. In the fertility community, most providers consider embryos to be an important part of the continuum between gametes (sperm and eggs) to live birth. Embryos are neither life nor property but rather a special class of \"potential life\" deserving of particular respect. The premise of the \"Personhood\" movement is that each fertilized oocyte is already an individual living being, subject to child custody and similar legal protections. Both in nature and in the laboratory, however, only a minority of fertilized eggs result in live birth. Not all IVF embryos are of adequate quality for transfer, and most transferred embryos result in negative pregnancy test results or miscarriages and, rarely, ectopic pregnancies. \"Personhood\" bills would also criminalize the life-saving, appropriate standard-of-care management of ectopic pregnancies, the most common cause of first-trimester maternal mortality. Efforts to apply a religious and moral lens to regulate and interfere with the practice of IVF on the basis of a mistaken perception that all fertilized eggs are early human beings, would make standard-of-care IVF practice impossible. By equating all fertilized eggs with live-born children, the broadly worded measures in \"Personhood\" bills would consign fertility patients to less effective treatments. As a practical matter, \"Personhood\" bills simply cannot coexist with legislation to protect the practice of IVF, without inordinate risks to physicians, their practices, and their patients. In response to recent events, the investigators encourage all readers to consider participating in state-level advocacy. Sharing IVF experiences and clinical expertise with state legislators (and other officials) can help protect patients, their providers, and the families that they strive to create. Efforts to inappropriately regulate and restrict IVF will decrease access to care to essential family-building treatments and services.</p>","PeriodicalId":12275,"journal":{"name":"Fertility and sterility","volume":" ","pages":"977-982"},"PeriodicalIF":6.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Fertility and sterility","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2024.10.018","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/10/22 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

We share experiences in advocating to defend in vitro fertilization (IVF) in Virginia, Missouri, and Mississippi; provide historical context on the "Personhood" anti-IVF movement; and discuss why "embryo donation" is a more accurate term than "embryo adoption." Some individuals and communities have a deeply held belief that a fertilized oocyte is a very early human life, and we will likely never change their minds. In the fertility community, most providers consider embryos to be an important part of the continuum between gametes (sperm and eggs) to live birth. Embryos are neither life nor property but rather a special class of "potential life" deserving of particular respect. The premise of the "Personhood" movement is that each fertilized oocyte is already an individual living being, subject to child custody and similar legal protections. Both in nature and in the laboratory, however, only a minority of fertilized eggs result in live birth. Not all IVF embryos are of adequate quality for transfer, and most transferred embryos result in negative pregnancy test results or miscarriages and, rarely, ectopic pregnancies. "Personhood" bills would also criminalize the life-saving, appropriate standard-of-care management of ectopic pregnancies, the most common cause of first-trimester maternal mortality. Efforts to apply a religious and moral lens to regulate and interfere with the practice of IVF on the basis of a mistaken perception that all fertilized eggs are early human beings, would make standard-of-care IVF practice impossible. By equating all fertilized eggs with live-born children, the broadly worded measures in "Personhood" bills would consign fertility patients to less effective treatments. As a practical matter, "Personhood" bills simply cannot coexist with legislation to protect the practice of IVF, without inordinate risks to physicians, their practices, and their patients. In response to recent events, the investigators encourage all readers to consider participating in state-level advocacy. Sharing IVF experiences and clinical expertise with state legislators (and other officials) can help protect patients, their providers, and the families that they strive to create. Efforts to inappropriately regulate and restrict IVF will decrease access to care to essential family-building treatments and services.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
为试管婴儿辩护:是时候参与州一级的宣传活动了!
我们分享了在弗吉尼亚州、密苏里州和密西西比州捍卫体外受精(IVF)的经验,介绍了反体外受精运动 "人格 "的历史背景,并讨论了为什么 "胚胎捐赠 "比 "胚胎收养 "更准确。一些个人和群体坚信受精卵细胞是人类早期生命,我们可能永远无法改变他们的想法。在不孕不育界,大多数服务提供者认为胚胎是配子(精子和卵子)到活产之间连续体的重要组成部分。胚胎既不是生命,也不是财产,而是一种值得特别尊重的特殊 "潜在生命"。人格 "运动的前提是,每个受精卵细胞都已经是一个独立的生命个体,受到儿童监护和类似的法律保护。然而,无论是在自然界还是在实验室中,只有少数受精卵能够活产。并非所有体外受精胚胎都能达到移植所需的质量,大多数移植胚胎都会导致妊娠试验阴性或流产,极少数会导致宫外孕。"人格权 "法案还将对宫外孕这种第一胎产妇死亡的最常见原因进行救生和适当的标准护理管理定为刑事犯罪。基于 "所有受精卵都是早期人类 "的错误认识,试图从宗教和道德的角度来规范和干预试管婴儿的实践,将使标准护理的试管婴儿实践成为不可能。通过将所有受精卵等同于活产婴儿,"人格 "法案中措辞宽泛的措施将使不孕不育患者接受效果较差的治疗。实际上,"人格权 "法案根本无法与保护试管婴儿实践的立法并存,否则将给医生、他们的实践和患者带来极大的风险。针对近期发生的事件,作者鼓励所有读者考虑参与州一级的宣传活动。与州议员(及其他官员)分享试管婴儿经验和临床专业知识,有助于保护患者、医疗服务提供者以及他们努力创造的家庭。对体外受精进行不适当的监管和限制将会减少患者获得医疗服务、基本家庭建设治疗和服务的机会。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Fertility and sterility
Fertility and sterility 医学-妇产科学
CiteScore
11.30
自引率
6.00%
发文量
1446
审稿时长
31 days
期刊介绍: Fertility and Sterility® is an international journal for obstetricians, gynecologists, reproductive endocrinologists, urologists, basic scientists and others who treat and investigate problems of infertility and human reproductive disorders. The journal publishes juried original scientific articles in clinical and laboratory research relevant to reproductive endocrinology, urology, andrology, physiology, immunology, genetics, contraception, and menopause. Fertility and Sterility® encourages and supports meaningful basic and clinical research, and facilitates and promotes excellence in professional education, in the field of reproductive medicine.
期刊最新文献
Preimplantation Genetic Testing post-Dobbs: REI Physician Perceptions of Impact on Counseling and Patient Decision Making. Childhood adversity and doctor visits in gynaecology: to screen or not to screen. Low doses of alkylating agents do not harm human ovarian tissue destined for cryopreservation. Preconception Chlamydia trachomatis seropositivity and fecundability, live birth, and adverse pregnancy outcomes. (Not) My body, my choice?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1