ESHRE, 2012. The world’s number of IVF and ICSI babies has now reached a calculated total of 5 million. www.eshre.eu/press-room/Press-releases.Google Scholar

Dyer, S, Chambers, G M, deMouzon, J, et al. International committee for Monitoring for Assisted Reproductive Technologies (ICMART) world report: ART 2008, 2009, and 2010. Hum Reprod. Advance access published May 20, 2016: 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Serour, G I, Aboulghar, M, Mansour, R, et al. Complications of medically assisted conception in 3500 cycles. Fertil Steril 1998;70:638–642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Serour, G I. Complications of assisted reproductive technology. In Infertility and Assisted Reproduction, edited by Rizk, B, Garcia-Velasco, J A, Sallam, H, Makrigiannakis, A. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008: 604–618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Serour, G I, Rhodes, C, Sattar, M A, Aboulghar, M A, Mansour, R. Complications of assisted reproductive techniques. A review. Assist Reprod 1999;9(4):214–232.Google Scholar

Serour, G I. Clinical manifestations of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome. In Ovarian Hyperstimulation Syndrome, edited by Gerris, J, Delvigne, A, Olivennes, F. Abingdon: Informa Health Care, 2006: 25–40.Google Scholar

Margeria, A, Sheldon, S. Parenting post IVF: is age not so relevant after all? Reprod Biomed Online 2014;29:10–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Murillo, A, et al. (In Vitro Fertilization) v. Costa Rica, Judgment of November 28, 2012 (Inter-American Court of Human Rights).Google Scholar

WHO/World Bank Report on Disability, 2011.Google Scholar

Zegers-Hochschild, F, Dickens, B M, Dughman-Manzur, S. Human rights to in vitro fertilization. Int J Gynecol Obstet 2013;123(1):86–89.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Serour, G I. Ethical issues in human reproduction: Islamic perspectives. Gynecol Endocrinol 2013;29(11):949–952.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Serour, G I. What is it to practice good medical ethics? A Muslim’s perspective. J Med Ethics 2015;41:121–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Serour, G I. Attitudes and cultural perspectives on infertility and its alleviation in the Middle East area. In Current Practices and Controversies in Assisted Reproduction, edited by Vayena, E, Rowe, P J, Griffin, P D. Geneva: WHO, 2002: 41–49.Google Scholar

Pandian, Z, Templeton, A, Serour, G I, Bhattacharya, S. Number of embryos for transfer after IVF and ICSI: a Cochrane review. Hum Reprod 2005;20(10):2681–2687.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Dickens, B M, Cook, R J. The legal status of in vitro embryos. Int J Gynecol Obstet 2010;111(1):91–94.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Serour, G I. Religious perspectives of ethical issues in art. In Contemporary Ethical Dilemmas in Assisted Reproduction, edited by Shenfield, F, Sureau, C. Abingdon: Informa Health Care, 2006: 99–114.Google Scholar

Serour, G I. Ethical implications of human embryo research. Publications of the Islamic Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (ISESCO) Series. Mohammedia, Morocco: Imprimerie Fédala, 1421 AH/2000 AD.Google Scholar

Serour, G I. Islamic perspectives in human reproduction. Reprod BioMed Online 2008;17(Suppl 3):34–38.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Stuhmcke, A. Tick tock goes the clock: rethinking policy and embryo storage limits. Sydney: University of Technology, Faculty of Law, Legal Studies Research Paper Series No. 2015/2; 2015.Google Scholar

Mohapatra, S. Using egg freezing to extend the biological clock: fertility insurance or false hope? Harvard Law Pol Rev 2014;8(2):381–411.Google Scholar

Christman, J. Relational autonomy, liberal individualism, and the social constitution of selves. Philos Stud 2004;117:143–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gawande, A. The cost conundrum. The New Yorker, June 1, 2009.Google Scholar

Krause, J. Reconceptualizing informed consent in an era of health care cost containment. Iowa Law Rev 1999;85:261, 363.Google Scholar

Sullivan, E A, Zegers-Hochschild, G, Mansour, R, et al. International Committee for Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technologies (ICMART) world report assisted reproductive technology 2004. Hum Reprod 2013;28(5):1375–1390.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Kupka, M S, Ferraretti, A P, de Mouzon, J, et al. Assisted reproductive technology in Europe, 2010: results generated from European registers by ESHRE. Hum Reprod 2014;29(10):2099–2113.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Gleitman v. Cosgrove (1967), 227 Atlantic Reporter 2d 689 (New Jersey Supreme Court 1967) at 692.Google Scholar

Procanik v. Cillo (1984) 478 Atlantic Reporter 2d 755 (New Jersey Supreme Court 1984).Google Scholar

Steptoe, P C, Edwards, R G Birth after the reimplantation of human embryos. Lancet 1978;2:366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bamford, P M, Steele, S J. Uterine and ovarian carcinoma in a patient receiving gonadotropin therapy: a case report. Obstet Gynecol 1982;89:962–964.Google Scholar

Schenker, J G, Ezra, Y. Complications of assisted reproductive techniques. Fertil Steril 1994;61:411–422.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Kaufman, S C, Spirtas, R, Alexander, N J. Do fertility drugs cause ovarian tumors? J Womens Health 1995;4:247–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Klemetti, R, Sevon, T, Gissler, M, Hemminki, E. Complication of IVF and ovulation induction. Hum Reprod 2005;20(12):3293–300.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Johannes, C B, Caro, J J, Hartz, S C, et al. Adverse effects of ovulatory stimulants – a review. Assist Reprod Rev 1993;3:68–74.Google Scholar

Flam, F, Lundstrom, V, Lindstedt, J, et al. Choriocarcinoma of the fallopian tube associated with induced superovulation in an IVF program: a case report. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 1989;33:183–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Whittemore, A S, Harris, R, Itnyre, J, et al. The Collaborative Ovarian Cancer Group. Characteristics relating to ovarian cancer risk: collaborative analysis of 12 U.S. case-control studies. I. Methods. Am J Epidemiol 1992;136:1175–1183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Whittemore, A S, Harris, R, Itnyre, J. The Collaborative Ovarian Cancer Group. Characteristics relating to ovarian cancer risk: collaborative analysis of 12 U.S. case-control studies. II. Invasive epithelial ovarian cancers in white women. Am J Epidemiol 1992;136:1184–1203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Harris, R, Whittemore, A S, Itnyre, J. The Collaborative Ovarian Cancer Group. Characteristics relating to ovarian cancer risk: collaborative analysis of 12 U.S. Case-control studies. III. Epithelial tumors of low malignant potential in white women. Am J Epidemiol 1992;136:1204–1211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Parazzini, F, Negri, E, La Vecchia, C, et al. Treatment for infertility and risk of invasive epithelial cancer. Hum Reprod 1997;12:2159–2161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mosgaard, B J, Lidegaard, O, Kjaer, S K, et al. Infertility, fertility drugs, and invasive ovarian cancer: a case-control study. Fertil Steril 1997;67:1005–1012.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Klip, H, Burger, C W, Kenemans, P, Leeuween, V. Cancer risk associated with subfertility and ovulation induction: a review. Cancer Causes Control 2000;11:319–344.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Braga, C, Negri, E, La Vecchia, C, et al. Fertility treatment and risk of breast cancer. Hum Reprod 1996;11:300–303.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Venn, A, Watson, L, Lumley, J, et al. Breast and ovarian cancer incidence after infertility and in vitro fertilization. Lancet 1995;346:995–1000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Venn, A, Watson, L, Bruinsma, F, Giles, G, Healy, D. Risk of cancer after use of fertility drugs with in vitro fertilization. Lancet 1999;354:1586–1590.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Brinton, L, Scoccia, B, Moghissi, K S, et al. Breast cancer risk associated with ovulation stimulation drugs. Hum Reprod 2004;19(9):2005–2013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mahdavi, A, Pejovic, T, Nezhat, F. Induction of ovulation and ovarian cancer: a critical review of the literature. Fertil Steril 2006;85:4:819–826.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Dickens, B M, Cook, R J. Multiple pregnancy: legal and ethical issues. Int J Gynecol Obstet 2008;103(3):270–274.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Ozturk, O, Templeton, A. Multiple pregnancy in assisted reproduction techniques. In Current Practices and Controversies in Assisted Reproduction, edited by Vayena, E, Rowe, P J, Griffin, P D. Geneva: WHO; 2002: 220–234.Google Scholar

Wood, C, Trounson, A O. Historical perspectives. In Handbook of In Vitro Fertilization, 2nd ed., edited by Trounson, A O, Gardner, D K. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 1999: 1–14.Google Scholar

Gur, N. Wrongful life claims and negligent selection of gametes or embryos in infertility treatments. A quest for coherence. J Law Med 2014;22(2):426–441.Google ScholarPubMed

Scott, R. Reconsidering “Wrongful Life” in England after thirty years: legislative mistakes and unjustifiable anomalies. Cambridge Law J 2013;72(1):115–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lambert, R D. Safety issues in assisted reproduction technology: the children of assisted reproduction confront the responsible conduct of assisted reproductive technologies. Hum Reprod 2002;17(12):3011–3015.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Dickens, B M. The right to conscience. In Abortion Law in Transnational Perspective: Cases and Controversies, edited by Cook, R J, Erdman, J N, Dickens, B M. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2014: 210–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dickens, B M. Ethical and legal aspects of noninvasive prenatal genetic diagnosis. Int J Gynecol Obstet 2013;124(2):181–184.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Greater Glasgow Health Board v. Doogan, [2014] UK Supreme Court 68, para 40.Google Scholar

See the UK Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990, as amended in 2003 and 2008.Google Scholar

See e.g. Cook, R, Sclater, S D, Kaganas, F (editors). Surrogate Motherhood: International Perspectives. Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2003.Google Scholar

In the Matter of Baby M. 1988, 537 Atlantic Reporter 2d 1227 (New Jersey Supreme Court), reversing in part 1987, 525 Atlantic Reporter 2d, 1128 (New Jersey Superior Court).Google Scholar

Golombok, S. Modern Families: Parents and Children in New Family Forms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar