Cargando…

Cracked open: exploring attitudes on access to egg freezing

Egg freezing (EF) technology has improved significantly over the last decade, giving women more choice over their reproductive futures. Despite this advance, EF brings forth contentious ethical and regulatory issues. Policies controlling access to EF vary around the world and there is a lack of cons...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Johnston, Molly, Fuscaldo, Giuliana, Richings, Nadine Maree, Gwini, StellaMay, Catt, Sally
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Taylor & Francis 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7887973/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32458753
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/26410397.2020.1758441
Descripción
Sumario:Egg freezing (EF) technology has improved significantly over the last decade, giving women more choice over their reproductive futures. Despite this advance, EF brings forth contentious ethical and regulatory issues. Policies controlling access to EF vary around the world and there is a lack of consensus about who should have access and what criteria are relevant in making these decisions. This study aimed to identify views of women about access to EF for both “medical” and “non-medical” risks to infertility. An online survey was administered to women aged between 18 and 60 years in Victoria, Australia between April and May 2018. A total of 1,066 individuals initiated the survey. The median age of the participants was 28 years and 81% were <40 years old. Almost all participants (98%) supported access to medical EF in situations where treatments (e.g. chemotherapy) or illnesses threaten fertility. Support for access to EF for non-medical indications was lower; 75% supported EF for “lack of suitable partner”, followed by “financial insecurity to raise a child” (72%) and “career/educational advancement” (65%). Older respondents (aged ≥40 years) were less likely than their younger counterparts to support all indications for non-medical EF. Our findings indicate broad support for EF. However, the variation in support between indications for non-medical EF suggests that individuals do not think about access to EF simply in terms of medical necessity. To reflect public views, future policy may need to consider access to EF beyond the medical/non-medical distinction.