Tag: fertility

Uncategorized

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.

Uncategorized

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.

Uncategorized

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.

Uncategorized

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.

Uncategorized

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.

Uncategorized

In the Journals – May 2017 by Livia Garofalo

Please enjoy the article round-up for the month of May! This post was put together in collaboration with Ann Marie Thornburg.

American Ethnologist

Plant matters: Buddhist medicine and economies of attention in postsocialist Siberia

Tatiana Chudakova

Buddhist medicine (sowa rigpa) in Siberia frames the natural world as overflowing with therapeutic potencies: “There is nothing in the world that isn’t a medicine,” goes a common refrain. An exploration of sowa rigpa practitioners’ committed relations with the plants they make into medicines challenges human-centric notions of efficacy in anthropological discussions of healing. Their work of making things medicinal—or pharmacopoiesis—centers on plants’ vital materialities and requires attention to the entanglements among vegetal and human communities and bodies. Potency is thus not the fixed property of substances in a closed therapeutic encounter but the result of a socially and ecologically distributed practice of guided transformations, a practice that is managed through the attentive labor of multiple actors, human and otherwise. In Siberia, pharmacopoiesis makes explicit the layered relations among postsocialist deindustrialization, Buddhist cosmologies, ailing human bodies, and botanical life.

Annals of Anthropological Practice

Special Issue: Continuity and Change in the Applied Anthropology of Risk, Hazards, and Disasters

Disaster vulnerability in anthropological perspective 

A.J. Faas

In the study of disasters, the concept of vulnerability has been primarily employed as a cumulative indicator of the unequal distributions of certain populations in proximity to environmental and technological hazards and an individual or group ability to “anticipate, cope with, resist and recover” from disaster (Wisner et al. 2004). This concept has influenced disaster research as a means to question how natural, temporary, and random disasters are and focused analysis on the human-environmental processes that produce disasters and subject some populations more than others to risk and hazards.

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.

Uncategorized

Decades on from Henrietta Lacks, we’re still struggling to find an adequate consent model

The ‘immortal’ HeLa cells. Heiti Paves/Shutterstock

When 30-year-old Henrietta Lacks walked through the doors of a Baltimore hospital in 1951 to get a “knot in the stomach” checked, she couldn’t have known she was about to change the face of medical research.

After undergoing a biopsy on her “knot”, Lacks was diagnosed with cervical cancer; it was so aggressive that she died only a few months later.

Henrietta Lacks.
Oregon State University/Flickr., CC BY-SA

But that was not the end of Lacks’s “life”. A small part of the cervical biopsy was retained and conveyed to the hospital’s tissue culture laboratory. There Dr George Gey, head of the laboratory, had been working for a few years on a system whereby human cells would continuously divide and grow in culture dishes. Gey had had no success thus far, but when he placed Lacks’s cells in culture, they behaved very differently.

Lacks’s cells survived, multiplied, grew robustly, and continued to do so for weeks and months afterwards – subsequently generating the first immortalised human cell line.

Gey never made a profit from these “HeLa” cells – named after Henrietta Lacks – but did distribute them to other scientists. Since then, the HeLa cells have been grown in countless laboratories across the globe and have now lived for twice as long outside Lacks’s body as they did inside it.

HeLa cells have revolutionised medical research, made countless contributions to medicine – from vaccine production to fertility treatment – and have been the foundation of a multi-billion dollar industry.

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.

Uncategorized

The Very Early Embryo & Its Moral Signifiance

by Andrew J. Prunty

As technology and biological research continue to develop in the twenty-first century, it is necessary to address and further define the ethical considerations of embryonic research and the appropriate rights that may limit the extent of human research on zygotes, blastocysts, and fetal scientific advancement. Because the area of harvesting embryonic stem cells remains significantly undefined, both legally and morally, there are vastly different opinions between researchers and bioethicists, mainly because of ethical limitations, on the rights that should be granted to cells with the potential to develop into human beings and the consequences of neglecting significant scientific research or advancement.

Current laws in the United States differ at the federal and state level, but there is no consistency in recognizing human embryos as humans, or affording them the same legal rights granted to a child; in fact, legal precedent actually detracts certain rights from developing embryos, favoring a human’s ability to destroy a potential human being (i.e. Roe v. Wade[i]) or the categorization of embryos as property (i.e. Davis v. Davis[ii], A.Z. v. B.Z.[iii], Marriage of Dahl[iv], or Reber v. Reiss[v]). These case law samples suggest the courts’ inability to reach a conclusion as to what is the status of an embryo.

The debate is not only circumscribed to matters of research, but to fundamental controversial and intertwined issues of bioethics such as: when life begins, embryonic stem cells, fetal rights, abortion, et cetera. All these topics are contentious and when one topic arises, they begin to comingle.

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.

Uncategorized

The Ethics of In Vitro Gametogenesis

Françoise Baylis comments on the ethics of using gametes derived from human induced pluripotent stem cells for future human reproduction.

__________________________________________

A recent New York Times article, provocatively titled “Babies from Skin Cells? Prospect is Unsettling to Some Experts,” has once again drawn attention to controversial research by scientists at Kyushu University in Japan who succeeded in making fertile mouse pups using eggs created through in vitro gametogenesis (IVG). This is a reproductive technology that involves creating functional gametes (sperm and eggs) from induced pluripotent stem cells. Induced pluripotent stem cells are cells derived from adult body cells (such as skin cells) that have the ability to become other body cells including reproductive cells (sperm and eggs).

Supporters of this reproductive technology eagerly anticipate similar research in humans. Indeed, enthusiasts are quick to trumpet the potential benefits of in vitro gametogenesis. These benefits fall into three general categories.

First, we are told that research to derive human gametes from induced pluripotent stem cells is important for basic science. It will advance our understanding of gamete formation, human development, and genetic disease. In turn, this increased understanding will create new options for regenerative medicine.

Second, we are told that this research will allow clinicians to improve fertility services. For example, with in vitro fertilization (IVF), women typically have to undergo hormonal stimulation and egg retrieval. This can be onerous in terms of the time required for interviews, counseling, and medical procedures. It can also be harmful. Potential psychological harms include significant stress and its sequelae.

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.