RESUMEN
RESEARCH QUESTION: This scoping review investigates the Ethical, Legal, and Social Implications (ELSI) of gamete donation, a critical facet of Assisted Reproductive Technologies, by analyzing the evolving research scope, methodological approaches, and the geographical skew in the literature. Despite the increased global uptake of donor gametes, current scholarship predominantly emanates from Western contexts and focuses on majoritized groups. This bias constrains the universality of research findings and limits their applicability across varied legal, cultural, and social contexts, underscoring a need for broader inclusivity. DESIGN: We addressed 867 pivotal articles published between 1999 and 2019. RESULTS: Our analysis reveals a discernible escalation in research volume, with 62% based on empirical research. The intellectual landscape unfolds into four dominant clusters: Regulatory Frameworks, Incentives, and Access; Family Dynamics and Genetic Linkages; Identity and Privacy in Donor Conception; and Cultural and Societal Attitudes towards GD. Each cluster highlights nuanced dimensions of gamete donation, from regulatory intricacies and psychological welfare to identity ethics and cultural perceptions. CONCLUSION: Our findings advocate for a shift towards more globally representative and methodologically inclusive research. By integrating diverse cultural narratives and expanding geographical breadth, future research can offer holistic understandings of gamete donation, fostering equitable and culturally resonant practices and policies worldwide.
RESUMEN
PURPOSE: This study aimed to assess the attitudes and experiences of subfertile couples applying for medically assisted reproduction (MAR) using their own gametes towards reproductive genetic carrier screening (RGCS) for monogenic conditions. METHODS: A prospective survey study was conducted where subfertile couples were recruited from the fertility centre of a university hospital in Flanders, Belgium. Participants were offered RGCS free of charge and completed self-administered questionnaires at three different time points. RESULTS: The study sample consisted of 26 couples. Most participants had no children, did not consider themselves as religious, and had some form of higher education. Overall, attitudes towards RGCS were mostly positive and the intention to participate in RGCS was high. Anxiety scores were only elevated and clinically relevant for a limited number of participants. A large proportion of participants would consider preventive reproductive options like prenatal diagnosis or in vitro fertilization (IVF)/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) combined with pre-implantation genetic testing for monogenic conditions (PGT-M) in the event of an increased likelihood of conceiving a child with a hereditary condition. Participants were satisfied with their decision to undergo RGCS, and the majority would recommend RGCS to other couples. CONCLUSION: Our study findings suggest that subfertile couples applying for MAR using their own gametes find RGCS acceptable and have a positive attitude towards it. This study provides valuable insights into the perspectives of these couples, highlighting the need for appropriate counseling and timely information provision.