Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-dfsvx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T15:16:03.046Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 39 - Legal Issues of Fertility Preservation

from Section 10 - Ethical, Legal, and Religious Issues

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2021

By
Nanette R Elster
Edited by
Jacques Donnez  and
S. Samuel Kim
Jacques Donnez
Affiliation:
Catholic University of Louvain, Brussels
S. Samuel Kim
Affiliation:
University of Kansas School of Medicine
Get access

Summary

Fertility preservation is a new subfield of reproductive medicine aimed at preserving the potential for genetic parenthood in adults or children at risk of sterility before undergoing anti-cancer treatments. Modern and powerful chemo- and radiotherapy protocols are either curing or significantly extending the survival for many young patients with cancer. Five-year survival rates for Caucasian and Hispanic American women have increased for Hodgkin’s lymphoma from 86 to 98% in the quarter century before the year 2000 and for breast cancer from 78 to 91% [1]. At the same time, diagnoses of some malignant diseases have become more prevalent (e.g., breast and testicular cancer) [2]. The net effect has been an increase in patients of reproductive age (and pre-pubertal) at risk of sterilization or early menopause by the effects of ionizing radiation or alkylating agents such as cyclophosphamide and platinum-based drugs.

Type
Chapter
Information
Fertility Preservation
Principles and Practice
 , pp. 442 - 451
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2021

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Campo- Engelstein L. For the sake of consistency and fairness: why insurance companies should cover fertility preservation treatment for iatrogenic infertility. Cancer Treat Res 2010;156:381–388.Google Scholar
Gorman, JR, Su, HI, Roberts, SC, Dominick, SA, Malcarne, VL. Experiencing reproductive concerns as a female cancer survivor is associated with depression. Cancer, 2015;121:935–942. DOI:10.1002/cncr.29133]CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
King, L, Quinn, GP, Vandaparampil, ST et al. Oncology nurses’ perceptions of barriers to discussion of fertility preservation with patients with cancer. Clin J Oncol Nurs, 2008;12:467–476.Google Scholar
Carlson, RH. Survey: little awareness of the ASCO fertility-preservation guidelines by cancer specialists. Oncology Times, 2009;31:26–30.Google Scholar
Schover, LR, Brey, K, Lichtin, A, Lipshultz, LI, Jeha, S. Oncologists’ attitudes and practices regarding banking sperm before cancer treatment. J Clin Oncol, 2002;20:1890–1897.Google Scholar
Deshpande, NA, Braun, IM, Meyer, FL. Impact of fertility preservation counseling and treatment on psychological outcomes among women with cancer: a systematic review. Cancer, 2015;121(22):3938–3947. DOI:10.1002/cncr.29637Google Scholar
Walters, EM, Benson, JD, Woods, EJ, Crister, JK. The history of sperm cryopreservation. In Pacey, AA, Tomlinson, MJ (eds.) Sperm Banking Theory and Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2009, 1–17.Google Scholar
Practice Committees of ASRM and SART. Mature oocyte cryopreservation: a practice guideline. Fertil Steril, 2013;99(1):37–43.Google Scholar
Lee, SJ, Schover, LR, Partridge, AH et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology recommendations on fertility preservation in cancer patients. J Clin Oncol, 2006;24:1–16.Google Scholar
President’s Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine and Biomedical and Behavioral Research. Making Health Care Decisions. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. 1982, 2–3.Google Scholar
Oktay, K, Harvey, BE, Partridge, AH et al. Fertility preservation in patients with cancer: ASCO clinical practice guideline update. J Clin Oncol, 2018;36:1994–2001.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
The Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Fertility preservation and reproduction in cancer patients. Fertil Steril, 2005;83:1622–1628.Google Scholar
Canterbury v. Spence, 464 F.2d 772, 780 (D.C. Cir. 1972).Google Scholar
Ethics Committee of ASRM. Fertility preservation and reproduction in patients facing gonadotoxic therapies: an ethics committee opinion. Fertil Steril, 2018;110(3):380–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Insogna, IG, Ginsburg, ES, Partridge, AH. Fertility preservation in BRCA carriers: special considerations. In Chagpar, B A. (ed.) Managing BRCA Mutation Carriers. Springer: Cham. 2017.Google Scholar
Friedman, LC, Kramer, RM. Reproductive issues for women with BRCA mutations. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr, 2005;34:83–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jeruss, JS, Woodruff, TK. Preservation of fertility in patients with cancer. NEJM, 2009;360:902–911.Google Scholar
Rosoff, PM, Kastur, ML. Preserving fertility in young cancer patients: a medical, ethical and legal challenge. J Philos, Sci Law 2003;3 at www.psljournal.com/archives/papers/preservingFert.cfm Visited December 10, 2009.Google Scholar
Smith, K, Efymow, B, Gracia, C. Patient navigation and coordination of care for the oncofertility patient: a practical guide. In Gracia, C, Woodruff, T (eds.) Oncofertility Medical Practice. New York: Springer. 2012.Google Scholar
Lacey v. Laird, 166 Ohio St. 12; 139 N.E.2d 25; 1956 Ohio LEXIS 610; 1 Ohio Op. 2d 158, 1956.Google Scholar
Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 US 510 (1925).Google Scholar
Glantz, LH. Research with children. Am J Law Med, 1998;24:213–244.Google Scholar
American Academy of Pediatrics, Committee on Bioethics. Informed consent, parental permission, and assent in pediatric practice. Pediatrics, 1995;95:314–317.Google Scholar
Ohio v. Akron Ctr. For Reprod. Health, 497 US 502, 510 (1990).Google Scholar
Bellotti v. Baird, 443 U.S. 622 (1979).Google Scholar
Capacity of minor to obtain treatment for venereal disease without consent of parent. A.R.S. § 44–132.01 (2009).Google Scholar
Treatment for health-related problems. Md. HEALTH-GENERAL Code Ann. § 20–102 (2009).Google Scholar
Consent by assault victim to treatment. Cal. Fam. Code § 6928 (2009).Google Scholar
Dolin, G, Roberts, DE, Rodriguez, LM, Woodruff, TK. Medical hope, legal pitfalls: Potential legal issues in the emerging field of oncofertility. Santa Clara L. Rev, 2009;49:673–716.Google Scholar
In re Guardianship of Hayes, 608 P.2d 635 (1980).Google Scholar
Additional Protections for Children Involved as Subjects in Research. 45 C.F.R. 46 401, et seq. 2009.Google Scholar
Nahata, L, Quinn, GP, Tishelman, AC. Counseling in pediatric populations at risk for infertility and/or sexual function concerns, Pediatrics, 2018,142(2)e20181435; DOI:10.1542/peds.2018-1435CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fallat, ME, Hutter, J. AAP Committee on Bioethics, AAP Section on Hematology/ Oncology, and AAP Section on Surgery. Preservation of fertility in pediatric and adolescent patients with cancer. Pediatrics, 2008;121:e1461–e1469.Google Scholar
Robertson, JA. Cancer and fertility: ethical and legal challenges. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr, 2005;34:104–106.Google Scholar
Font‐Gonzalez, A, Mulder, RL, Loeffen, EA. Fertility preservation in children, adolescents, and young adults with cancer: quality of clinical practice guidelines and variations in recommendations. Cancer, 2016;122:2216–2223. DOI:10.1002/cncr.30047Google Scholar
Morreim, EH. Medical research litigation and malpractice tort doctrines: Courts on a learning curve. Houst J Health Law Policy, 2003;4:1–86.Google Scholar
Protection of Human Subjects. 45 C.F.R. 46, et. seq. (2009).Google Scholar
Criteria for IRB approval of research. 45 C.F.R. 46. 111.Google Scholar
General requirements for informed consent. 45 C.F.R. 46. 116.Google Scholar
The Practice Committee of the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology and the Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Essential elements of informed consent for elective oocyte cryopreservation: a Practice Committee opinion. Fertil Steril, 2008;90:S134–S135.Google Scholar
Office for Human Research Protections. OHRP research involving children frequently asked questions. www.hhs.gov/ohrp/researchfaq.html#q12 (Accessed December 27, 2009).Google Scholar
Research not involving greater than minimal risk. 45 CFR 46.404.Google Scholar
Research involving greater than minimal risk but presenting the prospect of direct benefit to the individual subjects. 45 CFR 46.405.Google Scholar
Wharton, J. Law and biology: ‘Miracle’ baby denied benefits. Am Bar Assoc J, 1996;82:38.Google Scholar
Woodward v. Commissioner, 760 N.E. 2d 257 (2002).Google Scholar
Peres, J. Children from beyond the grave: surrogate carrying dead woman’s baby. Chicago Tribune. December 15, 1997; 1.Google Scholar
Daar, J, Benward, J, Collins, L et al. Planned oocyte cryopreservation for women seeking to preserve future reproductive potential: an Ethics Committee opinion. Fertil Steril, 2018;110:1022–1028. 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2018.08.027.)Google Scholar
Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Posthumous retrieval and use of gametes or embryos: an ethics committee opinion. Fertil Steril, 2018;110(1):45–49.Google Scholar
Parentage of child resulting from assisted conception. Va. Code Ann. § 20–158 (2009).Google Scholar
National Conference of State Legislatures. State laws related to insurance coverage for infertility treatment. 2018. www.ncsl.org/research/health/insurance-coverage-for-infertility-laws.aspx (Accessed December 4, 2018.)Google Scholar
Infertility coverage. § 215 ILCS 5/356 m. (2009).Google Scholar
State of Connecticut. An act requiring health insurance coverage for fertility preservation for insureds diagnosed with cancer; 2017. www.cga.ct.gov/2017/TOB/h/2017HB-05968-R01-HB.htmGoogle Scholar
State of Rhode Island. An Act Relating to Insurance- Coverage for Infertility, § 27–20-20 a.; 2017.Google Scholar
Insurance CD-Fertility Preservation: HB 2617; 2018. www.ilga.gov/legislation/billstatus.asp?DocNum=2617&GAID=14&GA=100&DocTypeID=HB&LegID=103887&SessionID=91#actionsGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×