RESUMO
RESEARCH QUESTION: How do fertility clinics in Belgium manage risks for genetic conditions in donor sperm treatment? DESIGN: An electronic questionnaire was distributed to all fertility clinics in Belgium in June 2023, focusing on treatments with anonymous sperm donors from 2018 to 2022. Responses from 15 clinics were analysed anonymously using IBM SPSS statistics. RESULTS: All clinics assessed donor risks, including a personal and family history, conventional karyotyping and (for 83.3% of the clinics) carrier screening for common autosomal recessive conditions. For recipients, 58.3% of the clinics relied only on a personal and family history. Despite efforts, the suspicion or detection of genetic conditions in donor sperm treatment was prevalent, with 9.4 adverse events reported per 100 children born. When adverse events occurred, most clinics (58.3%) would not inform the donor if no additional genetic testing was needed. Around 1 in 4 (26.7%) clinics always informed recipients about an adverse event possibly related to their donor. An equal number (26.7%) categorically ruled out the use of spermatozoa from a donor after an adverse event was traced back to his DNA, and 53.3% would not consider using the donor when the adverse event was not genetically confirmed. For the other clinics, deciding when to disclose new genetic risk information or when to allow the use of a donor linked to an adverse event was a complex matter involving different considerations. CONCLUSION: Although suspected or detected genetic conditions linked to donor treatments were common, there was wide variation in how Belgian clinics prevented and managed these situations.
RESUMO
Despite the frequent invocation of 'false hope' and possible related moral concerns in the context of assisted reproduction technologies, a focused ethical and conceptual problematisation of this concept seems to be lacking. We argue that an invocation of 'false hope' only makes sense if the fulfilment of a desired outcome (eg, a successful fertility treatment) is impossible, and if it is attributed from an external perspective. The evaluation incurred by this third party may foreclose a given perspective from being an object of hope. However, this evaluation is not a mere statistical calculation or observation based on probabilities but is dependent on several factors that should be acknowledgeable as morally relevant. This is important because it allows room for, and encourages, reasoned disagreement and moral negotiation. Accordingly, the object of hope itself, whether or not based on socially embedded desires or practices, can be a topic of debate.
Assuntos
Princípios Morais , Negociação , Humanos , Técnicas de Reprodução Assistida , ReproduçãoRESUMO
Advances in assisted reproductive technologies can give rise to several ethical challenges. One of these challenges occurs when the reproductive desires of two individuals become incompatible and conflict. To address such conflicts, it is important to unbundle different aspects of (non)parenthood and to recognize the corresponding reproductive rights. This article starts on the premise that the six reproductive rights-the right (not) to be a gestational, genetic, and social parent-are negative rights that do not entail a right to assistance. Since terminating or continuing a pregnancy is a form of assistance, the right (not) to be a gestational parent should enjoy primacy in conflicts. However, while refusing assistance may hinder the reproductive project of another person, "prior assistance" does not entitle someone to violate a reproductive right. Therefore, our analysis provides reasons to argue that someone has a right to unilaterally use cryopreserved embryos or continue the development of an entity in an extracorporeal gestative environment (i.e., ectogestation). Although this could lead to a violation of the right not to be a genetic parent, it does not necessarily entail a violation of the right not to be a social parent.