Book contents
- A Textbook of Clinical Embryology
- A Textbook of Clinical Embryology
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Frontispiece
- Chapter Co-authors
- Acknowledgments
- Section 1 Physiology of Reproduction
- Section 2 Assisted Reproductive Procedures
- Chapter 6 Hormonal Ovarian Treatment
- Chapter 7 Luteal Support
- Chapter 8 Ovum Pickup (OPU)
- Chapter 9 In Vitro Fertilization (IVF)
- Chapter 10 Embryo Culture
- Chapter 11 Embryo Transfer
- Chapter 12 Cryopreservation
- Chapter 13 In Vitro Maturation (IVM)
- Chapter 14 Biopsy of Testicles
- Chapter 15 Donation and Surrogacy
- Section 3 Genetics and Preimplantation Genetic Testing
- Section 4 IVF Laboratory
- Index
- References
Chapter 15 - Donation and Surrogacy
from Section 2 - Assisted Reproductive Procedures
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 March 2021
Edited by
Book contents
- A Textbook of Clinical Embryology
- A Textbook of Clinical Embryology
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Frontispiece
- Chapter Co-authors
- Acknowledgments
- Section 1 Physiology of Reproduction
- Section 2 Assisted Reproductive Procedures
- Chapter 6 Hormonal Ovarian Treatment
- Chapter 7 Luteal Support
- Chapter 8 Ovum Pickup (OPU)
- Chapter 9 In Vitro Fertilization (IVF)
- Chapter 10 Embryo Culture
- Chapter 11 Embryo Transfer
- Chapter 12 Cryopreservation
- Chapter 13 In Vitro Maturation (IVM)
- Chapter 14 Biopsy of Testicles
- Chapter 15 Donation and Surrogacy
- Section 3 Genetics and Preimplantation Genetic Testing
- Section 4 IVF Laboratory
- Index
- References
Summary
For persons who wish to have children but are unable to produce their gametes, assisted reproductive technology (ART) involving donated gametes suggests a means of becoming gestational and social parents (Figure 15.1). Conceiving with a donor gamete ultimately yields a child who lacks genetic relations with one or both of the parents. In order to compensate for this genetic lack, some fertility clinics match the ethnicity of gamete donors and recipient parents, to increase the likelihood that the resulting child will have phenotypic characteristics of the receiving parent despite the absence of a direct genetic link. This matching allows the family to keep secrecy about the use of a donor by ensuring that the child could look as a genetic child.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- A Textbook of Clinical Embryology , pp. 182 - 193Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2021
References
Maung, HH. Ethical problems with ethnic matching in gamete donation. J. Med. Ethics 2019; 45:112–116.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sauer, M, Paulson, R, Lobo, R. Pregnancy in women over 50 or more years: outcome of 22 consecutive established pregnancies from oocyte donation. Fertil. Steril. 1995; 64:111–115.Google Scholar
Isley, L, Falk, RE, Shamonki, J, Sims, CA, Callum, P. Management of the risks for inherited disease in donor-conceived offspring. Fertil. Steril. 2016;106:1479–1484.Google Scholar
Henneman, L, Borry, P, Chokoshvili, D, et al. Responsible implementation of expanded carrier screening. Eur. J. Hum. Genet. 2016; 24:e1–e12.Google Scholar
Martin, J, Asan, , Yi, Y, et al. Comprehensive carrier genetic test using next-generation deoxyribonucleic acid sequencing in infertile couples wishing to conceive through assisted reproductive technology. Fertil. Steril. 2015; 104:1286–1293.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Amor, DJ, Kerr, A, Somanathan, N, et al. Attitudes of sperm, egg and embryo donors and recipients towards genetic information and screening of donors. Reprod. Health 2018; 15:26.Google Scholar
Kenney, NJ, McGowan, ML. Looking back: egg donors’ retrospective evaluations of their motivations, expectations, and experiences during their first donation cycle. Fertil. Steril. 2008; 93:455–466.Google Scholar
Subak, LL, Adamson, GD, Boltz, NL. Therapeutic donor insemination: a prospective randomized trial of fresh versus frozen sperm. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 1992; 166:1597–1604.Google Scholar
Amuzu, B, Laxova, R, Shapiro, SS. Pregnancy outcome, health of children, and family adjustment after donor insemination. Obstet. Gynecol. 1990; 75:899–905.Google ScholarPubMed
Sauer, M. Reproductive prohibition: restricting donor payment will lead to medical tourism. Hum. Reprod. 1997; 12:1844–1845.Google Scholar
Williams, RA, Machin, LL. Rethinking gamete donor care: a satisfaction survey of egg and sperm donors in the UK. Plos One 2018; 13:e0199971. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0199971.Google Scholar
American Society for Reproductive Medicine.Guidelines for gamete and embryo donation. Fertil. Steril. 1998; 70:1S–4S.Google Scholar
Prateek, S, Sindhu, SG. Ethical and legal aspects in ART. In: Talwar, P, Sindhu, SG, eds., Step by Step Protocols in Clinical Embryology and ART. New Dehli: Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers. 1995; 441–461.Google Scholar
Linden, JV, Centola, G. New American Association of Tissue Banks standards for semen banking. Fertil. Steril. 1997; 68:597–600.Google Scholar
Trounson, A, Leeton, J, Besanko, M, Wood, C, Conti, A. Pregnancy established in an infertile patient after transfer of a donated embryo fertilised in vitro. Br. Med. J. 1983; 286:835–838.Google Scholar
Rosenwaks, Z. Donor eggs: their application in modern reproductive technologies. Fertil. Steril. 1987; 47:895–909.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sauer, MV, Paulson, RJ, Lobo, RA. A preliminary report on oocyte donation extending reproductive potential to women over 40. N. Engl. J. Med. 1990; 232:1157–1160.Google Scholar
Domingues, TS, Aquino, AP, Barros, B, et al. Egg donation of vitrified oocytes bank produces similar pregnancy rates by blastocyst transfer when compared to fresh cycle. J. Assist. Reprod. Genet. 2017; 34:1553–1557.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van Katwijk, C, Peeters, LL. Clinical aspects of pregnancy after age of 35 years: a review of the literature. Hum. Reprod. Update 1998; 4:185–194.Google Scholar
Sauer, M, Paulson, RJ, Lobo, R. Oocyte donation to women of advanced age: pregnancy results and obstetrical outcomes in patients 45 years and older. Hum. Reprod. 1996; 11:2540–2543.Google Scholar
Jacobsson, B, Ladfors, L, Milsom, I. Advanced maternal age and adverse perinatal outcome. Obstet. Gynecol. 2004; 104:727–733.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Simchen, MJ, Yinon, Y, Moran, O, Schiff, E, Sivan, E. Pregnancy outcome after age 50. Obstet. Gynecol. 2006; 108:1084–1088.Google Scholar
Cleary-Goldman, J, Malone, FD, Vidaver, J, et al. Impact of maternal age on obstetric outcome. Obstet. Gynecol. 2005; 105:983–990.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Joseph, KS, Allen, AC, Dodds, L, et al. The perinatal effects of delayed childbearing. Obstet. Gynecol. 2005; 105:1410–1418.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schutte, JM, Schuitemaker, NW, Steegers, EA, van Roosmalen, J; Dutch Maternal Mortality Committee. Maternal death after oocyte donation at high maternal age: case report. Reprod. Health 2008; 5:12.Google Scholar
Cohen, J, Scott, R, Schimmel, T, Levron, J, Willadsen, S. Birth of infant donor after transfer of anucleate donor oocyte cytoplasm into recipient eggs. Lancet 1997; 350:186–187.Google Scholar
Cohen, J, Scott, R, Alikani, M, et al. Ooplasmic transfer in mature human oocytes. Mol. Hum. Reprod. 1998; 4:269–280.Google Scholar
Dale, B, Wilding, M, Botta, G, et al. Pregnancy after cytoplasmic transfer in a couple suffering from idiopathic infertility. Hum. Reprod. 2001; 16:1469–1472.Google Scholar
Soini, S, Ibarreta, D, Anastasiadou, V, et al. The interface between assisted reproductive technologies and genetics: technical, social, ethical and legal issues. Eur. J. Hum. Genet. 2006; 14:588–645.Google Scholar
St John, J. The control of mtDNA replication during differentiation and development. Biochim. Biophys. Acta 2014; 1840:1345–1354.Google Scholar
Otten, AB, Smeets, HJ. Evolutionary defined role of the mitochondrial DNA in fertility, disease and ageing. Hum. Reprod. Update 2015; 21:671–689.Google Scholar
Scheibye-Knudsen, M, Fang, EF, Croteau, DL, Wilson, DM III, Bohr, VA. Protecting the mitochondrial powerhouse. Trends Cell Biol. 2015; 25:158–170.Google Scholar
Elliott, HR, Samuels, DC, Eden, JA, Relton, CL, Chinnery, PF. Pathogenic mitochondrial DNA mutations are common in the general population. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 2008; 83:254–260.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schaefer, AM, McFarland, R, Blakely, EL, et al. Prevalence of mitochondrial DNA disease in adults. Ann. Neurol. 2008; 63:35–39.Google Scholar
Trushina, E, McMurray, CT. Oxidative stress and mitochondrial dysfunction in neurodegenerative diseases. Neuroscience 2007; 145:1233–1248.Google Scholar
Reeve, AK, Krishnan, KJ, Turnbull, D. Mitochondrial DNA mutations in disease, aging, and neurodegeneration. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 2008; 1147:21–29.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Keating, DJ. Mitochondrial dysfunction, oxidative stress, regulation of exocytosis and their relevance to neurodegenerative diseases. J. Neurochem. 2008; 104:298–305.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Isasi, R, Kleiderman, E, Knoppers, BM. Genetic technology regulation. Editing policy to fit the genome? Science 2016; 351:337–339.Google Scholar
Tachibana, M, Sparman, M, Sritanaudomchai, H, et al. Mitochondrial gene replacement in primate offspring and embryonic stem cells. Nature 2009; 461:367–372.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Liu, CS, Chang, JC, Kuo, SJ, et al. Delivering healthy mitochondria for the therapy of mitochondrial diseases and beyond. Int. J. Biochem. Cell Biol. 2014; 53:141–146.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Koopman, WJ, Willems, PH, Smeitink, JA. Monogenic mitochondrial disorders. N. Engl. J. Med. 2012; 366:1132–1141.Google Scholar
Wolf, DP, Mitalipov, N, Mitalipov, S. Mitochondrial replacement therapy in reproductive medicine. Trends Mol. Med. 2015; 21:68–76.Google Scholar
Darbandi, S, Darbandi, M, Khorshid, HRK, et al. Experimental strategies towards increasing intracellular mitochondrial activity in oocytes: a systematic review. Mitochondrion 2016; 30:8–17.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Woods, DC, Tilly, JL. Autologous germline mitochondrial energy transfer (AUGMENT) in human assisted reproduction. Semin. Reprod. Med. 2015; 33:410–421.Google Scholar
Fakih, MHSM, Szeptycki, J, dela Cruz, DB, et al. The AUGMENT treatment: physician reported outcomes of the initial global patient experience. JFIV Reprod. Med. Genet. 2015; 3:154.Google Scholar
Boucret, L, Bris, C, Seegers, V, et al. Deep sequencing shows that oocytes are not prone to accumulate mtDNA heteroplasmic mutations during ovarian ageing. Hum. Reprod. 2017; 32:2101–2109.Google Scholar
Liu, S, Li, Y, Gao, X, Yan, JH, Chen, ZJ. Changes in the distribution of mitochondria before and after in vitro maturation of human oocytes and the effect of in vitro maturation on mitochondria distribution. Fertil. Steril. 2010; 93:1550–1555.Google Scholar
Wilding, M, Dale, B, Marino, M, et al. Mitochondrial aggregation patterns and activity in human oocytes and preimplantation embryos. Hum. Reprod. 2001; 16:909–917.Google Scholar
Van Blerkom, J, Davis, P, Alexander, S. Differential mitochondrial distribution in human pronuclear embryos leads to disproportionate inheritance between blastomeres: relationship to microtubular organization, ATP content and competence. Hum. Reprod. 2000; 15:2621–2633.Google Scholar
Paull, D, Emmanuele, V, Weiss, KA, et al. Nuclear genome transfer in human oocytes eliminates mitochondrial DNA variants. Nature 2013; 493:632–637.Google Scholar
Craven, L, Tuppen, HA, Greggains, GD, et al. Pronuclear transfer in human embryos to prevent transmission of mitochondrial DNA disease. Nature 2010; 465:82–85.Google Scholar
Shenfield, F, Pennings, G, Cohen, J, et al. ESHRE Task Force on ethics and law 10: surrogacy. Hum. Reprod. 2005; 20:2705–2707.Google Scholar
Blake, L, Carone, N, Raffanello, E, et al. Gay fathers’ motivations for and feelings about surrogacy as a path to parenthood. Hum. Reprod. 2017; 32:860–867.Google Scholar
Murphy, DA. The desire for parenthood: gay men choosing to become parents through surrogacy. J. Fam. Issues 2013; 34:1104–1124.Google Scholar
Lindenman, E, Shepard, MK, Pescovitz, OH. Müllerian agenesis: an update. Obstet. Gynecol. 1997; 90:307–312.Google Scholar
Beale, JM, Creighton, SM. Long-term health issues related to disorders or differences in sex development/intersex. Maturitas 2016; 94:143–148.Google Scholar
Aflatoonian, N, Eftekhar, M, Aflatoonian, B, Rahmani, E, Aflatoonian, A. Surrogacy as a good option for treatment of repeated implantation failure: a case series. Iran. J. Reprod. Med. 2013; 11:77–80.Google ScholarPubMed
Wang, AY, Dill, SK, Bowman, M, Sullivan, EA. Gestational surrogacy in Australia 2004–2011: treatment, pregnancy and birth outcomes. Aust. N. Z. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. 2016; 56:255–259.Google Scholar
Blyth, E, Landau, R. (Eds.) Third Party Assisted Conception Across Cultures: Social, Legal and Ethical Perspectives. London; New York: Jessica Kingsley Publishers. 2004.Google Scholar
Thompson, C. Making Parents: The Ontological Choreography of Reproductive Technologies. Cambridge; London: MIT Press. 2005.Google Scholar
Jennings, S, Mellish, L, Tasker, F, Lamb, M, Golombok, S. Why adoption? Gay, lesbian, and heterosexual adoptive parents’ reproductive experiences and reasons for adoption. Adopt. Q 2014; 17:205–226.Google Scholar