Advertisement

Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

Ethische Aspekte

Warum das Verbot der Eizellspende nicht mehr zeitgemäß ist

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Literatur

  1. 1.

    Deutscher Ethikrat. Embryospende, Embryoadoption und elterliche Verantwortung. Stellungnahme. 22. März 2016. ISBN 978-3-941957-69-5. http://www.ethikrat.org/dateien/pdf/stellungnahme-embryospende-embryoadoption-und-elterliche-verantwortung.pdf

  2. 2.

    Kentenich H et al. Eizellspende: Überlegungen aus medizinischer und psychosomatischer Sicht. Gynäkologische Praxis 2018; 43:428-34

  3. 3.

    De Geyter Ch et al. ART in Europe, 2014: results generated from European registries by ESHRE. Hum Reprod 2018;33(9):1586-601

  4. 4.

    Shenfield F et al. Cross border reproductive care in six European countries. Human Reproduction 2010;25:1361-8

  5. 5.

    HFEA. Fertility treatment in 2014. Trends and figures. www.hfea.gov.uk, 2016

  6. 6.

    CDC. Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) Network success rate 2014. National Summary. https://www.cdc.gov/art/artdata/index.html, 2017

  7. 7.

    Savasi V et al. Maternal and fetal outcomes in oocyte donation pregnancies. Human Reproduction Update 2016;22(5):620-33

  8. 8.

    Storgaard M et al. Obstetric and neonatal complications in pregnancies conceived after oocyte donation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology 2017; 124(4):561-72

  9. 9.

    Ilioi EC et al. A longitudinal study of families created by reproductive donation: Follow-up at adolescence. Fertil Steril 2015;104(3): e26

  10. 10.

    Pecks U et al. Eizellspende - ein Risikofaktor für Schwangerschaftshochdruck. Deutsches Ärzteblatt 2011;108(3):23-31

  11. 11.

    Stoop D et al. Obstetric outcome in donor oocyte pregnancies : a matched-pair analysis. Reprod Biol Endocrinol 2012 June 6;10:42.

  12. 12.

    Van der Hoorn MLP et al. Clinical and immunologic aspects of egg donation pregnancies: a systematic review. Hum Reprod. Update 2010;16(6):704-12

  13. 13.

    Hagman A et al. Obstetric and neonatal coutcome after oocyte donation in 106 women with Turner syndrome: a Nordic cohort study. Human Reproduction 2013; 28 (6):1598-609

  14. 14.

    Hagman A et al. Morbidity and mortality after childbirth in women with Turner karyotype. Human Reproduction; 2013; 28(7):1961-73

  15. 15.

    DIR. Jahrbuch des Deutschen IVF-Register. Ergebnisse 2017. Journal für Reproduktionsmedizin und Endokrinologie. Sonderheft 1/2018

  16. 16.

    Youssef MA et al. Gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist versus HCG for oocyte triggering in antagonist assisted reproductive technology cycles. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2011;Jan 19;(1):CD008046

  17. 17.

    Stoop D Vercammen L et al. Effects of ovarian stimulation on reproductive outcome in oocyte donor. Fertility and Sterility 2012; 97(6):1328-30

  18. 18.

    Söderström-Anttila V et al. Short- and long-term health consequences and current satisfaction levels for altruistic anonymous, identity-release and knowns oocyte donors. Human Reproduction 2016;31(3):597-606

  19. 19.

    Golombok S et al. Families created by gamete donation: follow-up at age 2. Human Reproduction 2005;20:286-93

  20. 20.

    Imrie S, Golombok S. Long-term outcomes of children conceived through egg donation and their parents: a review of the literature. Fertility and Sterility 2018;110(7):1187-93

  21. 21.

    HFEA (Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority). Code of practice. Egg donation. 11. Donor recruitment, assessment and screening. Version 9.0. www.hfea.gov.uk, 2019

  22. 22.

    Purewal S, Akker van den OBA. Systematic review of oocyte donation: investigating attitudes, motivations and experiences. Hum Rep Update 2009;15:499-515

  23. 23.

    Applegarth LD et al. Parental disclosure to offspring created with oocyte donation: intentions versus reality. Human Reproduction 2016;31(8):1809-15

  24. 24.

    Söderström-Anttila V et al. Increasing openness in oocyte donation families regarding disclosure over 15 years. Human Reproduction 2010;25(10):2535-42

  25. 25.

    Blake L et al. Daddy ran out of tadpoles: how parents tell their children that they are donor conceived, and what their 7-year-olds understand. Human Reproduction 2010;25(10):2527-34

  26. 26.

    Samenspenderregistergesetz. SaRegG: 17. Juli 2017. BGBl. I S2513, 2018

  27. 27.

    Leopoldina. Stellungnahme. Fortpflanzungsmedizingesetz in Deutschland - für eine zeitgemäße Gesetzgebung. www.leopoldina.org, 2019

  28. 28.

    Miettinen A et al. Attitudes of anonymous and identity-release oocyte donors towards future contact with donor offspring. Human Reproduction 2019;34(6):672-8

  29. 29.

    Bodri, D et al. Complications related to ovarian stimulation and oocyte retrieval in 4052 oocyte donor cycles. Reproductive Biomed Online 2008;17:237-43

  30. 30.

    Bundesärztekammer. Stellungnahme der zentralen Ethikkommission bei der Bundesärztekammer "Umgang mit medizinischen Angeboten im Ausland ethischer und rechtlicher Fragen des Medizintouristen". Deutsches Ärzteblatt 2016;113(47) A2142

Download references

Author information

Correspondence to Prof. Dr. med. Heribert Kentenich.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kentenich, H., Sibold, C., Stief, G. et al. Warum das Verbot der Eizellspende nicht mehr zeitgemäß ist. gynäkologie + geburtshilfe 25, 24–27 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s15013-019-2332-6

Download citation