Tag: fertility

Bioethics Blogs

Reflections on the Federal Budget & LGBT Families

Sophia Fantus argues that the expansion of a tax credit to LGBT individuals who use assisted reproduction helps to legitimize and include the perspectives, needs, and experiences of LGBT families.

__________________________________________

Assisted reproduction is associated with high out-of-pocket expenditures as services often cost tens of thousands of dollars. For the past ten years in Canada, heterosexual couples diagnosed with medical infertility have been able to claim the cost of assisted reproduction as part of their medical expense tax credit. Recently, the Canadian Government approved a new federal budget that allows LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) and single persons to also receive a tax credit for assisted reproduction. That tax credit is retroactive for up to ten years.

The World Health Organization defines infertility as a disease in which there is a failure to achieve a pregnancy after at least 12 months of regular unprotected sexual intercourse. Accordingly, assisted reproduction has been conceptualized as a biomedical intervention to resolve a diagnosed medical condition. The new retroactive tax credit signifies the adoption of broader definitions of infertility that include LGBT experiences.

The Rainbow by Robert Delaunay, 1913

The use of assisted reproduction by LGBT families separates heterosexuality and heterosexual sex from procreation, and yields novel routes to parenthood for LGBT individuals. In contrast to the typical heterosexual experience, the use of assisted reproduction by LGBT individuals is often the primary (and desired) choice for pursuing parenthood. By including the experiences of LGBT families in the federal budget, the Government is indirectly supporting a broader understanding of infertility from a medical model to a social and structural model that recognizes  single women and men, as well as LGBT couples, who require a third-party to procreate.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by these authors and blogs are theirs and do not necessarily represent that of the Bioethics Research Library and Kennedy Institute of Ethics or Georgetown University.

Bioethics News

Participants’ Testimonials: GBI Summer School a Smashing Success, (June 19-30), 2017

The GBI Summer School proved to be even better than anticipated or described. As a newcomer to the discipline, I had expected the course to provide a broad overview of topics and speakers. Indeed, while broad, the degree of expertise and timely subject material provided an excellent and comprehensive survey of the discipline in global and local settings. Moreover, the students provided another dimension of diversity, both in nationalities and areas of expertise. The speakers made their presentation materials readily available, answered questions, and were willing to address topics of interest offline. I would strongly recommend the course to both novices and subject matter experts alike. The course especially demonstrated the need, relevance, and desirability for global bioethics to be better incorporated into public policy formulation.

Geoffrey Pack, Prevention and Protection Officer, Office of Homeland and Security, City of San Diego, M.A.L.D., Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University in Cooperation with Harvard University

The GBI Summer School, in the heart of NYC’s Pace University Campus, is a fantastic opportunity! International scholars and professionals from all over the world attended the program, contributing their experiences and engaging with bioethics experts. The City of New York – with the nearby Pace University Campus, Brooklyn Bridge, City Hall, and 9/11 Memorial – provided the perfect setting to discuss the global ethical challenges in technology and medicine. Discussions ranged from law and politics to culture and psychology, encompassing the ethical dilemmas that define the 21st century. I have immensely enjoyed not just the internationally known faculty but also hearing from the learners who come from all over the world representing diverse fields.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by these authors and blogs are theirs and do not necessarily represent that of the Bioethics Research Library and Kennedy Institute of Ethics or Georgetown University.

Bioethics Blogs

The need for Christians to make distinctively biblical moral decisions

I am continuing to reflect on the recent CBHD conference. One of the paper presentations I attended was related to the role of Christian faith and the church in decisions about fertility treatments. Heather Prior and an associate are doing research on how Christian couples in their community make decisions about treatments for infertility including such things as IVF. In the preliminary results she was reporting they found that many of the churches that the couples in their study attended had statements about the use of reproductive technology, but that none of the couples dealing with infertility were aware of those statements. Few had sought any counsel on their decisions from their pastors or others in their church.

I find that concerning. In my interaction with Christian students I have become very concerned that even those with strong Christian faith tend to think about ethical issues using thought patterns they have absorbed from the surrounding culture rather than using distinctively biblical ways of thinking. I don’t think this is limited to students, and this study suggests that it is not. The culture that we live in believes that people should make their own decisions about how they live based on how they feel about any decisions they need to make. It also says that those around them should affirm whatever they decide. I fear that Christians are taking on that same attitude. If we think like the world around us, we will make decisions on things such as reproductive technology based on what we desire and how we feel and expect the church to affirm whatever decision we make.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by these authors and blogs are theirs and do not necessarily represent that of the Bioethics Research Library and Kennedy Institute of Ethics or Georgetown University.

Bioethics News

Study shows for the first time that incidence of chromosomal abnormalities are strong associated with IVF – assisted reprodution practices

The presence of chromosomal abnormalities in embryos is very high following hormonal ovarian stimulation and in vitro fertilisation (IVF), occasionally exceeding 50%. Regardless of other medical reasons, part of these are thought to be caused by the type of treatment used to produce the embryos. This has now been evaluated for the first time in Human Reproduction, showing “a strong association between center-specific ART [artificial reproduction technologies] treatment practices and the incidence of chromosome abnormality in human embryos generated from human cycles“.

Photo Fertility Care Dublin

La entrada Study shows for the first time that incidence of chromosomal abnormalities are strong associated with IVF – assisted reprodution practices aparece primero en Bioethics Observatory.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by these authors and blogs are theirs and do not necessarily represent that of the Bioethics Research Library and Kennedy Institute of Ethics or Georgetown University.

Bioethics Blogs

Fertility preservation for transgender individuals

The field of oncofertility emerged to preserve the fertility
of cancer patients whose treatment might render them as infertile or sterile.
Today, the field of fertility preservation has expanded to other patient
populations whose medical treatment may affect their fertility. One such
population is transgender individuals undergoing gender affirming treatments.
Although research on transgender individuals is limited overall and in
particular regarding issues surrounding reproduction, transgender individuals
are interested in biological reproduction. Because various gender affirming
treatments will permanently affect their fertility, such as hormonal treatment
and surgical removal of the gonads, it is important for transgender individuals
to be offered fertility preservation before they start these treatments.

There are, however, some factors that may make fertility
preservation difficult or less attractive of an option for transgender
individuals. Healthcare professionals offering fertility preservation should be
aware of these factors so they can help mitigate them. Here I will discuss two
of them.

First, undergoing fertility preservation treatment can be
stressful for both transgender and cisgender people, but there are some unique
challenges for transgender individuals. Individuals with gender dysphoria may
find it particularly difficult to undergo procedures involving anatomy that is
discordant with their identity. For example, transgender women who are asked to
retrieve sperm via masturbation may find this request exacerbates their gender
dysphoria and may not be possible to do. Transgender men who are asked to
undergo vaginal ultrasounds may find this psychologically traumatic. In
recognizing how fertility preservation treatment can be particularly difficult
for transgender individuals, healthcare professionals should be prepared to
find ways to alleviate these difficulties, such as by offering surgical methods
of sperm retrieval for transgender women and sedating transgender men during
vaginal ultrasounds.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by these authors and blogs are theirs and do not necessarily represent that of the Bioethics Research Library and Kennedy Institute of Ethics or Georgetown University.

Bioethics Blogs

Fertility preservation for transgender individuals

The field of oncofertility emerged to preserve the fertility
of cancer patients whose treatment might render them as infertile or sterile.
Today, the field of fertility preservation has expanded to other patient
populations whose medical treatment may affect their fertility. One such
population is transgender individuals undergoing gender affirming treatments.
Although research on transgender individuals is limited overall and in
particular regarding issues surrounding reproduction, transgender individuals
are interested in biological reproduction. Because various gender affirming
treatments will permanently affect their fertility, such as hormonal treatment
and surgical removal of the gonads, it is important for transgender individuals
to be offered fertility preservation before they start these treatments.

There are, however, some factors that may make fertility
preservation difficult or less attractive of an option for transgender
individuals. Healthcare professionals offering fertility preservation should be
aware of these factors so they can help mitigate them. Here I will discuss two
of them.

First, undergoing fertility preservation treatment can be
stressful for both transgender and cisgender people, but there are some unique
challenges for transgender individuals. Individuals with gender dysphoria may
find it particularly difficult to undergo procedures involving anatomy that is
discordant with their identity. For example, transgender women who are asked to
retrieve sperm via masturbation may find this request exacerbates their gender
dysphoria and may not be possible to do. Transgender men who are asked to
undergo vaginal ultrasounds may find this psychologically traumatic. In
recognizing how fertility preservation treatment can be particularly difficult
for transgender individuals, healthcare professionals should be prepared to
find ways to alleviate these difficulties, such as by offering surgical methods
of sperm retrieval for transgender women and sedating transgender men during
vaginal ultrasounds.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by these authors and blogs are theirs and do not necessarily represent that of the Bioethics Research Library and Kennedy Institute of Ethics or Georgetown University.

Bioethics News

The biological status of the early human embryo. When does human life begins?

“Those who argue that that embryo can be destroyed with impunity will have to prove that this newly created life is not human. And no-one, to the best of our knowledge, has yet been able to do so.”

Introduction

In order to determine the nature of the human embryo, we need to know its biological, anthropological, philosophical, and even its legal reality. In our opinion, however, the anthropological, philosophical and legal reality of the embryo — the basis of its human rights — must be built upon its biological reality (see also HERE).

Consequently, one of the most widely debated topics in the field of bioethics is to determine when human life begins, and particularly to define the biological status of the human embryo, particularly the early embryo, i.e. from impregnation of the egg by the sperm until its implantation in the maternal endometrium.

Irrespective of this, though, this need to define when human life begins (see our article  is also due to the fact that during the early stages of human life — approximately during its first 14 days — this young embryo is subject to extensive and diverse threats that, in many cases, lead to its destruction (see HERE).

These threats affect embryos created naturally, mainly through the use of drugs or technical procedures used in the control of human fertility that act via an anti-implantation mechanism, especially intrauterine devices (as DIU); this is also the case of drugs used in emergency contraception, such as levonorgestrel or ulipristal-based drugs (see HERE), because both act via an anti-implantation mechanism in most of the time.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by these authors and blogs are theirs and do not necessarily represent that of the Bioethics Research Library and Kennedy Institute of Ethics or Georgetown University.

Bioethics News

The biological status of the early human embryo. When does human life begins?

“Those who argue that that embryo can be destroyed with impunity will have to prove that this newly created life is not human. And no-one, to the best of our knowledge, has yet been able to do so.”

Introduction

In order to determine the nature of the human embryo, we need to know its biological, anthropological, philosophical, and even its legal reality. In our opinion, however, the anthropological, philosophical and legal reality of the embryo — the basis of its human rights — must be built upon its biological reality (see also HERE).

Consequently, one of the most widely debated topics in the field of bioethics is to determine when human life begins, and particularly to define the biological status of the human embryo, particularly the early embryo, i.e. from impregnation of the egg by the sperm until its implantation in the maternal endometrium.

Irrespective of this, though, this need to define when human life begins is also due to the fact that during the early stages of human life — approximately during its first 14 days — this young embryo is subject to extensive and diverse threats that, in many cases, lead to its destruction (see HERE).

These threats affect embryos created naturally, mainly through the use of drugs or technical procedures used in the control of human fertility that act via an anti-implantation mechanism, especially intrauterine devices (as DIU); this is also the case of drugs used in emergency contraception, such as levonorgestrel or ulipristal-based drugs (see HERE), because both act via an anti-implantation mechanism in 50% of cases.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by these authors and blogs are theirs and do not necessarily represent that of the Bioethics Research Library and Kennedy Institute of Ethics or Georgetown University.

Bioethics Blogs

Samaritan Ministries and Ectopic Pregnancies

As I was reading Laura Turner’s Buzzfeed essay about Christian health sharing ministries this past week, I was startled to discover that Samaritan Ministries, the insurance alternative my husband uses, does not cover expenses related to ectopic pregnancies.

In Section VIII of the Samaritan Ministries Guidelines, “Needs Shared by Members,” Ectopic Pregnancies is listed as the ninth item under “Miscellaneous Items Not Shared.” The guidelines state:

“Expenses related to the termination of the life of an unborn child are not publishable. The removal of a living unborn child from the mother which results in the death of the child is a ‘termination of the life of the child’ unless the removal was one for the primary purpose of saving the life of the child, or improving the health of the child. This means that the removal from the mother of an unborn child due to an ectopic pregnancy (outside the normal location in the uterus) is not publishable unless the member states they believed the child was not alive before the procedure. Considerations of the health or life of the mother does not change that the removal of a living unborn child from the mother may be a termination of life.”[1]

Ectopic pregnancy occurs when a fertilized egg implants outside of the uterus, most commonly in one of the fallopian tubes.[2]  The condition is highly dangerous to the mother, who is at risk of internal rupturing and blood loss.[3]  While there are different classifications of ectopic pregnancies and a few different methods of treatment, Turner approximates the cost of surgery to save the life of the mother to be around $15,000.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by these authors and blogs are theirs and do not necessarily represent that of the Bioethics Research Library and Kennedy Institute of Ethics or Georgetown University.