Patient perceptions of body mass index restrictions limiting fertility care for women with high body mass index.

RESEARCH QUESTION: What is the patient experience of women with high body mass index (BMI) with BMI restrictions that limit fertility care? DESIGN: Qualitative study using in-depth, semi-structured interview methodology. Interview transcripts were analysed for iterative themes in accordance with principles of grounded theory. RESULTS: Forty women with a BMI of 35 kg/m2 or higher with scheduled or completed appointment at the Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility (REI) clinic completed an interview. Most participants experienced BMI restrictions as unjust. Many perceived that BMI restrictions on fertility care may be medically justified and were in support of weight loss discussions to improve chances of pregnancy; however, several argued that they should have autonomy to commence treatment following an individualized risk assessment. Participants offered recommendations to improve discussion of BMI restrictions and weight loss, including framing the conversation as supportive of their reproductive goals and offering proactive referral to weight loss support to prevent the perception that BMI is a categorical exclusion to future fertility care. CONCLUSIONS: Participant experiences highlight a need for enhanced strategies for communicating BMI restrictions and weight loss recommendations in ways that are perceived to be supportive of patients' fertility goals without further contributing to weight bias and stigma experienced in medical settings. Opportunities for training to mitigate experiences of weight stigma may be beneficial for clinical and non-clinical staff. Evaluation of BMI policies should be undertaken within the context of clinic policies that permit or prohibit fertility care for other high-risk groups.

Ethical considerations of maternal-fetal surgery.

The practice of maternal-fetal surgery (MFS) has expanded from lethal fetal conditions to conditions which are significantly disabling but not a lethal fetal abnormality. The inclusion of myelomeningocele within the scope of MFS in the 1990s sparked a renewed debate over the ethics of MFS. While demonstrating increasing efficacy and range of application, MFS continues to be ethically fraught due to the inherent tension between maternal and fetal interests. Ethical issues central to MFS include the patienthood of the fetus; the balance of risks and benefits between the woman and fetus; informed consent for experimental procedures; and determination of conditions that meet ethical qualifications for MFS intervention. These concerns are likely to persist and evolve as perinatal medicine continues to advance. Here we summarize the current state of MFS ethics, highlighting the major positions in the literature thus far as well as examine future directions. It is essential robust discussions of these important issues continue both to ensure ethical medical practice and to provide support to clinicians, pregnant women, and their families.