Single men's attitudes towards posthumous use of their sperm cryopreserved due to illness in Israel.

BACKGROUND: Banking of frozen spermatozoa by single men opens the possibility of procreation long after their death. Requests for posthumous reproduction by the families of the deceased are growing, raising an ethical debate, especially when written instructions were not left by the patients and in cases of unplanned perimortem collection. The issue of the progenitors' intention to procreate after death is the key to ethically based decision-making in these cases. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the attitude of single men cryopreserving spermatozoa before life-threatening medical situations towards post-mortem usage of their cryopreserved spermatozoa. MATERIALS & METHODS: Adult single men prior to sperm cryopreservation before cytotoxic therapy were asked to sign a structured form declaring their will and instructions for the usage of their cryopreserved spermatozoa in case of their demise. RESULTS: Four hundred fifty-two men of diverse ethnicity, religious and cultural backgrounds signed the form providing instructions for the use of their cryopreserved spermatozoa in case of mortality. Their age was 27.4 ± 8.06 years. Seven (1.5%) patients willed their spermatozoa for posthumous reproduction to a sibling, 22 (4.9%) to parents, and 26 (5.7%) to their informal female partners. The significant majority (n = 397; 87.8 %) of the single men were ordered to destroy their cryopreserved spermatozoa in case of their expiry. Note that, 26-39 years old men were less likely (81.8% vs. >90% in other ages) to order sperm destruction, as well as men with a poorer prognosis (83% vs. 90%). DISCUSSION: In this study group, most single men cryopreserving spermatozoa in the face of future life-threatening morbidity do so for their own future live parenthood, and are not interested in posthumous reproduction. CONCLUSION: Our results doubt the claim that single men who had an unplanned perimortem sperm collection can be universally presumed to have wished to father a child posthumously. Any claimed assumed consent in these cases should be considered for each case individually based on its specific circumstances.

Does the time interval from the end of sperm processing to intrauterine insemination (lab-to-uterus time) affect treatment outcome?

BACKGROUND: Intra-uterine insemination is an essential component in the treatment of infertility. Success rates are dependent on clinical factors of the female partner, sperm quality, and preparation technique. The effect of the time interval between the end of sperm preparation in the lab, and its injection into the uterine cavity (lab-to-uterus time) is yet to be determined. AIM: To investigate the association between the lab-to-uterus time and the pregnancy rate. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Partner and donor spermatozoa intra-uterine insemination cycles were included. Preparation for intra-uterine insemination of partners' fresh ejaculate or donor thawed spermatozoa was identical. The time interval from the completion of this stage to the actual intra-uterine injection was recorded. The lab-to-uterus intervals were divided into groups A (0-29 min), B (30-59 min), C (60-89 min), and D (90-180 min). Pregnancy was defined as two adequate consecutive doubling levels of hCG and the pregnancy rates were compared between the groups. RESULTS: A total of 267 female patients (138 partner spermatozoa, 129 donors) who had 470 intra-uterine insemination cycles (218 partner spermatozoa, 252 donors) were included. No significant differences in pregnancy rates per treatment cycle were found between the four lab-to-uterus interval groups: A (n = 96 cycles; 16.7%), B (n = 217; 19.4%), C (n = 121; 16.5%), and D (n = 36; 36.1%). No difference was found in the pregnancy rates between partner and donor spermatozoa. In the case of fresh partner spermatozoa, the pregnancy rates for groups were as follows: A (n = 40 cycles, 20%); B (n = 94; 14.9%), C (n = 70; 17.1%), and D (n = 14; 35.7%) (NS). In the case of thawed donor spermatozoa, the pregnancy rates (per cycle) for groups were as follows: A (n = 56; 14.3%), B (n = 123; 22.8%), C (n = 51; 15.7%), and D (n = 22; 36.4)% (NS). CONCLUSIONS: The intra-uterine insemination outcome was not affected by the lab-to-uterus time interval. Extended waiting up to 3 h for insemination did not have any detrimental effect on pregnancy rates, regardless if partner or donor spermatozoa was used.