Storage trends, usage and disposition outcomes following egg freezing.

RESEARCH QUESTION: What happens to eggs after egg freezing? DESIGN: A retrospective cohort study was performed spanning 2012-2022. Data were obtained from seven assisted reproductive technology clinics in Victoria, Australia. Aggregated, de-identified data were collected on cycles that resulted in egg freezing and the following outcomes, including treatment involving thawed eggs and disposition outcomes of surplus eggs. RESULTS: The number of patients with eggs in storage grew rapidly from 144 in 2012 to 2015 in 2022. In 2022, 73% of patients had stored their eggs for <5 years, 25% for 5-10 years, and 2% for ≥10 years. Most thaw cycles (600/645, 93%) involved eggs that had been frozen for <5 years, of which 47% had been frozen for <6 months. Overall, the live birth rate per initiated thaw cycle was 12%. Across the study period, 2800 eggs from 286 patients were either discarded, donated or exported. Of the 128 patients who discarded their eggs, 32% had stored their eggs for <5 years, 32% for 5-10 years and 36% for >10 years. Of the 23 patients who donated their eggs to someone else, all but four had stored their eggs for <5 years. No eggs were donated to research over the study period. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that very few patients have made the decision to use or relinquish their eggs. Strategies may be needed to address the prolonged storage of surplus eggs, and ensure that patients are supported to make decisions regarding the fate of their eggs which align with their preferences and values.

Financing future fertility: Women's views on funding egg freezing.

Like other assisted reproductive technology (ART) procedures, the cost of egg freezing (EF) is significant, presenting a potential barrier to access. Given recent technological advancements and rising demand for EF, it is timely to reassess how EF is funded. An online cross-sectional survey was conducted in Victoria, Australia and was completed by 656 female individuals. Participants were asked their views on funding for both medical and non-medical EF. The median age of participants was 28 years (interquartile range 23-37 years) and most participants were employed (44% full-time, 28% part-time, 33% students). There was very high support for public funding for medical EF (n = 574, 87%), with 302 (46%) participants indicating support for the complete funding of medical EF through the public system. Views about funding for non-medical EF were more divided; 43 (6%) participants supported full public funding, 235 (36%) supported partial public funding, 150 (23%) supported coverage through private health insurance, and 204 (31%) indicated that non-medical EF should be self-funded. If faced with the decision of what to do with surplus eggs, a high proportion of participants indicated that they would consider donation (71% to research, 59% to a known recipient, 52% to a donor programme), indicating that eggs surplus to requirements could be a potential source of donor eggs. This study provides insights that could inform policy review, and suggests revisiting whether the medical/non-medical distinction is a fair criterion to allocate funding to ART.

Employer-Sponsored Egg Freezing: Carrot or Stick?

BackgroundSince 2014, many companies have followed the lead of Apple and Facebook and now offer financial support to female employees to access egg freezing. Australian companies may soon make similar offers. Employer-sponsored egg freezing (ESEF) has raised concerns and there is academic debate about whether ESEF promotes reproductive autonomy or reinforces the 'career vs. family' dichotomy. Despite the growing availability of ESEF and significant academic debate, little is known about how ESEF is perceived by the public. The aim of this study was to explore women's attitudes toward ESEF.MethodsWomen aged 18-60 years who resided in Victoria, Australia were invited to complete an online, cross-sectional survey investigating views toward egg freezing. Associations between participant demographics and their views about ESEF were assessed using multinominal logistic regression, adjusted for age and free text comments were analyzed using thematic analysis.ResultsThe survey was completed by 656 women, median age 28 years (range: 18-60 years). Opinions on the appropriateness of employers offering ESEF were divided (Appropriate: 278, 42%; Inappropriate: 177, 27%; Unsure: 201, 31%). There was significantly less support for ESEF among older participants and those employed part-time (p < 0.05). While some participants saw the potential for ESEF to increase women's reproductive and career options, others were concerned that ESEF could pressure women to delay childbearing and exacerbate existing inequities in access to ARTs.ConclusionsOur analysis revealed that while some women identified risks with ESEF, for many women ESEF is not viewed as theoretically wrong, but rather it may be acceptable under certain conditions; such as with protections around reproductive freedoms and assurances that ESEF is offered alongside other benefits that promote career building and family. We suggest that there may be a role for the State in ensuring that these conditions are met.

Do health service staff support the implementation of voluntary assisted dying at their workplace?

BACKGROUND: On 29 November 2017, the Victorian Parliament passed the Voluntary Assisted Dying (VAD) Act 2017, which came into effect on 19 June 2019. AIMS: To investigate whether staff from a large regional health service support the legalisation of VAD and the implementation of VAD at their workplace. METHODS: Staff were invited to complete an anonymous online survey comprising both closed- and open-ended questions. RESULTS: Thirty-eight percent of the workforce (n = 1624) responded to the survey. Most participants supported the legalisation of VAD (88%), the provision of eligibility assessment and/or the administration of VAD within the health service (80%). There were negligible differences in support for VAD by role; however, specialist doctors were significantly less supportive (65%). Approximately half of the respondents expressed concern about monitoring (49%) or implementation (53%) of VAD. Concerns were also raised about assessment of eligibility, support for staff involved in VAD and pressure on both patients and staff to participate. Nearly three-quarters (71%) of participants agreed that if the health service offers VAD services, a special unit or facility should be available. CONCLUSIONS: This study found that health workers have concerns about the implementation of VAD at their workplace but are generally supportive. This article provides information for health services considering the implementation of VAD, about staff concerns and issues that need to be addressed for the successful introduction of VAD.

Cracked open: exploring attitudes on access to egg freezing.

Egg freezing (EF) technology has improved significantly over the last decade, giving women more choice over their reproductive futures. Despite this advance, EF brings forth contentious ethical and regulatory issues. Policies controlling access to EF vary around the world and there is a lack of consensus about who should have access and what criteria are relevant in making these decisions. This study aimed to identify views of women about access to EF for both "medical" and "non-medical" risks to infertility. An online survey was administered to women aged between 18 and 60 years in Victoria, Australia between April and May 2018. A total of 1,066 individuals initiated the survey. The median age of the participants was 28 years and 81% were <40 years old. Almost all participants (98%) supported access to medical EF in situations where treatments (e.g. chemotherapy) or illnesses threaten fertility. Support for access to EF for non-medical indications was lower; 75% supported EF for "lack of suitable partner", followed by "financial insecurity to raise a child" (72%) and "career/educational advancement" (65%). Older respondents (aged ≥40 years) were less likely than their younger counterparts to support all indications for non-medical EF. Our findings indicate broad support for EF. However, the variation in support between indications for non-medical EF suggests that individuals do not think about access to EF simply in terms of medical necessity. To reflect public views, future policy may need to consider access to EF beyond the medical/non-medical distinction.

Assessing research capacity in Victoria's south-west health service providers.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the research interest, capacity and culture in individuals, teams and health organisations across south-western Victoria. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. SETTING: Eight public health services in the south-western region of Victoria. PARTICIPANTS: All staff were invited to participate. INTERVENTION: Hospital staff survey. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The Research Capacity and Culture tool. RESULTS: The survey was completed by 776 staff including nurses, allied health staff and doctors. Half of the respondents were currently involved in research, while most wanted to be more involved. Respondents reported having moderate research skills and success at individual, team and organisation levels. Women and nurses reported having lower skills than comparable groups. Motivators for undertaking research were skill development (increased job satisfaction and brain stimulation) while the most commonly selected barriers were lack of time, other work taking priority and lack of funding. CONCLUSION: Health organisations in regional and rural Victoria could harness opportunities to enable staff participation in research by supporting identified strengths, addressing barriers and providing "permission" for staff to get involved in research. Efforts to improve research capacity among women and nurses could lead to the greatest overall improvement in organisations' research capacity and output-and translation of evidence into practice.

Patient-centred care through a broader lens: Supporting patient autonomy alongside moral deliberation.

Patient-centred care (PCC) is an essential component of high-quality healthcare and shared decision-making is its cornerstone. Yet, integrating the principles of PCC into healthcare practice is not always straightforward and shared decision-making can be complicated and ethically demanding. While ethicists and academics routinely debate moral aspects of clinical care, such discussion among clinicians is less overt. In this paper, we use Emmanuel et al.'s deliberative model to provide a practical framework for considering ethical aspects of PCC and shared decision-making. The model encourages us to appreciate PCC through a broader lens and consider patient autonomy alongside other moral obligations such as justice and the equitable distribution of finite resources. The model can be used by healthcare providers, patients and caregivers to facilitate dialogue and moral deliberation regarding the merit of their preferences and values; in this way, individualised care can be delivered without compromising other important ethical obligations.

Developing clinical ethics support for an Australian Health Service: A survey of clinician's experiences and views.

BACKGROUND: International developments suggest that providing clinical ethics services to help clinicians negotiate ethical issues that arise in clinical practice is beneficial and reflects best practice in promoting high ethical standards and patient-centered care. The aim of this study was to explore the needs and experiences of clinical staff members to inform the development of future clinical ethics support. METHODS: Health professionals at a large regional health service completed an online survey containing questions about the frequency of ethical and legal issues encountered in clinical practice, the type of situations that gave rise to the ethical and/or legal uncertainty or concern, how clinicians currently address these issues, and what support would be welcome. RESULTS: The survey was completed by 369 staff members, including 61% with more than 10 years in the profession and 51% in nursing/midwifery. Two-thirds (66%) indicated they often considered ethical implications of their clinical decisions, and half (49%) often considered the legal implications. More than half (58%) were often/occasionally concerned about the ethically right thing to do. Patient requests for borderline treatment (47%), staff disagreements about patient care (48%), and patients declining recommended treatment (54%) were the most frequent reasons given for ethical or legal uncertainty. Sixty-nine percent of respondents indicated that the way their department addressed ethical issues could be improved and 85% agreed that there is a need for more discussion on ethical issues. The majority (82%) of respondents had encountered ethically challenging clinical situations where additional support would have helped. Common approaches to issues were discussion with colleagues/supervisor (91.1%), discussion at handover/group forums (50.8%), and consultation with guidelines/protocols (60.9%). CONCLUSIONS: A majority of clinical staff members surveyed have encountered ethically/legally challenging cases daily for which they have often sought additional advice. This study indicates that many clinical staff members would welcome some form of additional clinical ethics support including advice and education.

Optometrists' perspectives on cross-cultural encounters in clinical practice: a pilot study.

BACKGROUND: There is growing awareness that cultural background influences health beliefs and practices and can impact on the patient-practitioner encounter. However, in relation to optometry there is little known about the implications of cultural diversity for clinical decision-making and how optometrists address culturally based understandings of health. This pilot study examines how culturally based differences in health practices and beliefs impact on patient-optometrist interactions and how optometrists negotiate and manage these differences. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 10 optometrists. A qualitative analysis was undertaken regarding the optometrists' experiences of cultural diversity and how these impact their decision-making and clinical interactions. RESULTS: Emergent themes were: 1 Culture can influence and impact on patient-optometrist clinical encounters. 2 Culturally based differences in health practices and beliefs can have a negative impact on clinical encounters. 3 Culturally based differences, beliefs and values (related to eye health) can be difficult to negotiate. 4 Optometrists might benefit from additional training and strategies to deal with culturally based differences in health beliefs and practices. CONCLUSIONS: This pilot study provides data about some of the issues that arise as a result of cultural differences between patients and health care practitioners. The findings from this study contribute to an understanding of the impact of cultural diversity and might assist the development of training and further research in the area.

How to facilitate decisions about surplus embryos: patients' views.

BACKGROUND: In Victoria, Australia, legislation governing fertility treatment provides that surplus human embryos must not be stored for longer than 5 years. Couples must then choose one of three options: discard, donate to research or donate to another infertile couple. Previous research suggests that many people find these decisions difficult and emotionally distressing. This study aims to elucidate the nature of these difficulties and to identify ways in which the decision-making process could be facilitated. METHODS: This project used a combination of qualitative research methods. In total, 42 people agreed to participate in either a structured interview or a group discussion. All participants had completed IVF treatment and had surplus embryos in storage. The aim of the interviews was to discuss participants' decision making regarding their surplus embryos. Data were thematically analysed. RESULTS: Most participants described the decision-making process as difficult and emotional. Findings indicate that participants could be assisted by more information about each of their current options, and opportunities to talk to others in similar situations. Many responded positively to the idea of having more options, including choice about which research projects to donate to (directed research), and about the recipients of their donated embryos (directed donation). CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that there are practical ways to assist people in making decisions about their surplus embryos, which could be easily implemented. In addition, the study demonstrated interest in the possibility of directed donation to other couples.

Genetic ties: are they morally binding?

Does genetic relatedness define who is a mother or father and who incurs obligations towards or entitlements over children? While once the answer to this question may have been obvious, advances in reproductive technologies have complicated our understanding of what makes a parent. In a recent publication Bayne and Kolers argue for a pluralistic account of parenthood on the basis that genetic derivation, gestation, extended custody and sometimes intention to parent are sufficient (but not necessary) grounds for parenthood. Bayne and Kolers further suggest that definitions of parenthood are underpinned by the assumption that 'being causally implicated in the creation of a child is the key basis for being its parent'. This paper examines the claim that genetic relatedness is sufficient grounds for parenthood based on a causal connection between genetic parents and their offspring. I argue that parental obligations are about moral responsibility and not causal responsibility because we are not morally accountable for every consequence to which we causally contribute. My account includes the conditions generally held to apply to moral responsibility, i.e. freedom and foreseeability. I argue that parental responsibilities are generated whenever the birth of a child is a reasonably foreseeable consequence of voluntary actions. I consider the implications of this account for third parties involved in reproductive technologies. I argue that under some conditions the obligations generated by freely and foreseeably causing a child to exist can be justifiably transferred to others.

Spare embryos: 3000 reasons to rethink the significance of genetic relatedness.

IVF laws in Victoria, Australia provide that human embryos must not remain in storage in excess of 5 years. Studies reviewing the fate of surplus human embryos reveal that close to 90% of couples choose to discard their excess embryos and that hundreds of embryos are disposed of annually. It has been argued that human embryos are a valuable resource and that there is a need to consider educational programmes to encourage couples to donate spare embryos to other infertile couples, rather than discard them. Surveys show that one reason that so few embryos are donated is that couples attach great significance to genetic parenthood. Advances in reproductive technology may necessitate a review of biological definitions of family and the importance of genetic relatedness. It can be argued that it is unreasonable to conclude that genetic ties are so significant that embryos should be discarded rather than donated and raised by non-genetically related parents. It is suggested that education programmes should encourage reflection on people's beliefs about the importance of genetic relatedness with regard to what makes a family. Open embryo donation or directed embryo donation programmes might cause couples to change their minds, or alleviate their anxiety about donating embryos to others.

Fatherless families: how important is genetic relatedness?

How should families be constructed? Does it matter if we choose to ignore 'blood ties' and raise children without their genetic parents? The debate over a recent court ruling allowing single and lesbian women access to assisted reproductive technologies (ART's) illustrates two possible answers to this question. Many of those opposed to the ruling argue that the traditional biological family is the natural family unit and the ideal family form, which should be preserved. Amongst those in favour it is argued that families are not defined by nature but culturally constructed, that the traditional biological family is just one possible family form and that the way families are arranged is a matter of personal preference. This paper argues that questions about the importance of preserving the biological family rest largely on the value we attribute to genetic relatedness and not on whether the family is a natural or cultural construct. I argue against the claim that genetic relatedness and biological families are so important to children's welfare that lesbian and single women should be denied access to ART's.