Debating Elective Single Embryo Transfer after in vitro Fertilization: A Plea for a Context-Sensitive Approach.

Ec Ezugwu, S Van der Burg
Author Information
  1. Ec Ezugwu: Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Nigeria Teaching Hospital, Itukku-Ozalla, PMB 01129, Enugu State, Nigeria.
  2. S Van der Burg: IQ Healthcare, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, 114 IQ Healthcare, 6500 HB Nijmegen, Netherlands.

Abstract

The number of embryos transferred after in vitro fertilization (IVF) have been a topic of debate for over a decade now. Due to the risk associated with multiple pregnancy, there has been a global effort at reducing the multiple pregnancy rates to a minimum while maintaining an acceptable level of successful IVF pregnancy rate. Elective single embryo transfer (eSET) is advocated in most European countries. In Belgium and Sweden, eSET is mandatory for couples with a good prognosis. However, despite clinical recommendations and policy statements, patients in clinical practice frequently do request for the transfer of multiple embryos in order to have twins. Such requests conflict with policy guidelines and create an ethical dilemma for physicians: Should the physician do as the couple requests, and there with respect the autonomy of patients, or adhere to medical policy that takes the health of the mother and children at heart? This article provides an exploration of the arguments found in the literature that plays a role in the discussion on this topic and eventually argues that what a physician should do depends on the specificities of the context in which patients and physicians are implicated. These contextual issues can be taken into account in a shared decision-making procedure, which allows reflections and the responsibilities of both patients and physicians to be attended in decision about assisted reproduction.

Keywords

References

  1. Reprod Biomed Online. 2006 Dec;13(6):765-71 [PMID: 17169193]
  2. Hum Fertil (Camb). 2011 Sep;14(3):151-3 [PMID: 21870989]
  3. Hum Reprod. 2007 Nov;22(11):2883-7 [PMID: 17898085]
  4. Hum Reprod. 2004 Apr;19(4):911-6 [PMID: 14990543]
  5. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2011 Jun;23(3):168-73 [PMID: 21372712]
  6. Twin Res. 2002 Apr;5(2):132-6 [PMID: 11931691]
  7. Lancet. 1978 Aug 12;2(8085):366 [PMID: 79723]
  8. Fertil Steril. 2004 May;81(5):1240-6 [PMID: 15136084]
  9. Fertil Steril. 2004 Mar;81(3):500-4 [PMID: 15037390]
  10. Reprod Biomed Online. 2008 Jul;17(1):82-7 [PMID: 18616895]
  11. Hum Reprod. 2007 Aug;22(8):2202-7 [PMID: 17562674]
  12. Hum Reprod. 2010 Aug;25(8):1851-62 [PMID: 20570973]
  13. Hum Reprod. 2007 Oct;22(10):2673-8 [PMID: 17766921]
  14. Patient Educ Couns. 2010 Jan;78(1):124-9 [PMID: 19464139]
  15. Fertil Steril. 2007 Aug;88(2):354-60 [PMID: 17490657]
  16. Reprod Biomed Online. 2007;15 Suppl 3:35-9 [PMID: 18598607]
  17. BMJ. 2010 Sep 30;341:c2501 [PMID: 20884700]
  18. BJOG. 2007 Aug;114(8):977-83 [PMID: 17578474]
  19. Fertil Steril. 2012 Apr;97(4):835-42 [PMID: 22196716]
  20. Semin Perinatol. 2012 Jun;36(3):162-8 [PMID: 22713496]
  21. Fertil Steril. 2010 Feb;93(2):339-40 [PMID: 20105464]
  22. Fertil Steril. 2011 Dec;96(6):1367-9 [PMID: 21962964]
  23. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2009 Jul;201(1):3-4 [PMID: 19576368]
  24. Niger J Clin Pract. 2010 Sep;13(3):294-7 [PMID: 20857788]
  25. Fertil Steril. 2013 Jan;99(1):44-46 [PMID: 23095140]
  26. Hum Reprod. 2012 Dec;27(12):3609-15 [PMID: 22990515]
  27. Hum Reprod. 2008 Dec;23(12):2718-23 [PMID: 18775886]
  28. Semin Fetal Neonatal Med. 2004 Dec;9(6):429-35 [PMID: 15691780]
  29. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009 Apr 15;(2):CD003416 [PMID: 19370588]
  30. MMWR Surveill Summ. 2007 Jun 8;56(6):1-22 [PMID: 17557073]
  31. Fertil Steril. 2011 Feb;95(2):542-7.e1-10 [PMID: 20656287]
  32. BMJ. 2010 Dec 21;341:c6945 [PMID: 21177530]
  33. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2009 Jul;201(1):15.e1-3 [PMID: 19576370]
  34. BJOG. 2007 Sep;114(9):1104-12 [PMID: 17655730]
  35. Reprod Biomed Online. 2010 Nov;21(5):667-75 [PMID: 20888295]
  36. Fertil Steril. 2009 Jun;91(6):2426-31 [PMID: 18439598]
  37. Hum Reprod. 2013 Feb;28(2):294-7 [PMID: 23175498]
  38. Reprod Biomed Online. 2011 Oct;23(4):403-6 [PMID: 21852194]
  39. Fertil Steril. 2010 Aug;94(3):936-45 [PMID: 19446809]
  40. Reprod Biomed Online. 2011 Oct;23(4):407-10 [PMID: 21843969]
  41. BJOG. 2004 Nov;111(11):1294-6 [PMID: 15521878]
  42. Hum Reprod. 2013 Oct;28(10):2599-607 [PMID: 23904468]
  43. Reprod Biomed Online. 2011 Oct;23(4):500-4 [PMID: 21840757]
  44. Hum Reprod. 2003 Feb;18(2):455-7 [PMID: 12571190]
  45. J Community Health. 2006 Jun;31(3):198-224 [PMID: 16830507]

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0pregnancypatientsvitromultipletransferpolicyembryosfertilizationIVFtopicElectiveeSETclinicalrequestsphysicianphysiciansEmbryonumbertransferreddebatedecadenowDueriskassociatedglobaleffortreducingratesminimummaintainingacceptablelevelsuccessfulratesingleembryoadvocatedEuropeancountriesBelgiumSwedenmandatorycouplesgoodprognosisHoweverdespiterecommendationsstatementspracticefrequentlyrequestordertwinsconflictguidelinescreateethicaldilemmaphysicians:couplerespectautonomyadheremedicaltakeshealthmotherchildrenheart?articleprovidesexplorationargumentsfoundliteratureplaysrolediscussioneventuallyarguesdependsspecificitiescontextimplicatedcontextualissuescantakenaccountshareddecision-makingprocedureallowsreflectionsresponsibilitiesattendeddecisionassistedreproductionDebatingSingleTransferFertilization:PleaContext-SensitiveApproachAutonomyMultipleValuesculture

Similar Articles

Cited By