Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

A legal-ethical analysis of reproductive endocrinologists’ right to refuse ovulation induction to patients with diminished ovarian reserve

  • ASSISTED REPRODUCTION TECHNOLOGIES
  • Published:
Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Review of the legal and ethical basis for reproductive endocrinologists to refuse ovulation induction to patients with diminished ovarian reserve.

Methods

The Lexis-Nexis search engine was used to perform a legal review pertaining to refusal of treatment. Ethical opinions of medical organizations were also reviewed.

Results

Federal antidiscrimination laws provide legal recourse for patients with diminished ovarian reserve who are denied ovulation induction. However, the same laws also permit refusal of care when there is bona fide medical justification to decline services. In addition, the codes of ethics for relevant professional organizations support physicians’ decisions to refuse treatment when treatment is futile.

Conclusion

Although it is ethically and legally permissible to deny ovulation induction to patients with diminished ovarian reserve when medically justified, refusal may invite retaliatory litigation. Counseling remains a cornerstone in directing these patients to options with more potential for success, such as donor eggs and adoption.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Wright VC, Chang J, Jeng G, Chen M, Macaluso M. Assisted reproductive technology surveillance—United States, 2004. MMWR Surveill Summ. 2007;56(6):1–22.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Assisted Reproductive Technology Success rates. National Summary and Fertility Clinic Reports. Atlanta, US Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2006

  3. Faddy MJ. Follicle dynamics during ovarian ageing. Mol Cell Endocrinol. 2000;163(1–2):43–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. ASRM: Aging and infertility in women: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril 2002;78(1):215–9

    Google Scholar 

  5. Klipstein S, Regan M, Ryley D, Goldman M, Alper M, Reindollar R. One last chance for pregnancy: a review of 2,705 in vitro fertilization cycles initiated in women age 40 years and above. Fertil Steril. 2005;84:435–45.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Gleicher N, Weghofer A, Barad D. Too old for IVF: are we discriminating against older women? J Assist Reprod Genet. 2007;24(12):639–44. Epub 2007 Dec 4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Definition of Disability, 42 U.S.C., Sec. 12102(2)(B) (2010). Online

  8. Public Welfare, 45 CFR, Pt. 84 (2001). Online

  9. North Shore. Univ. Hosp. v Rosa, 194 AD2d 727

  10. Elaine W. v Joint Diseases N. Gen. Hosp., 180 AD2d 525

  11. Sumes v. Andres, 938 F. Supp. 9; 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17346

  12. Bragdon v Abbott, 524 US 624 (1998)

  13. Pacourek v Inland Steel Co, 858 F. Supp. 1393 N.D. Ill. 1994

  14. Americans with Disabilities Act §12182(a) (1990)

  15. Americans with Disabilities Act § 12181(7)(F) (1990)

  16. Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Fertility treatment when the prognosis is very poor or futile. Fertil Steril. 2009;92:1194–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Committee on Ethics, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists: ACOG Committee Opinion No. 362: Medical Futility. Committee on Ethics, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists., Obstet Gynecol 2007;109(3):791–4

    Google Scholar 

  18. Clark CC. In harm’s way: AMA physicians and the duty to treat. J Med Philos. 2005;30(1):65–87.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, The University of Texas Medical Branch, 301 University Boulevard, Galveston, TX, 77555-0587, USA

    Fethiye Sinem Karipcin, Amjad Hossain & John Y. Phelps

Authors
  1. Fethiye Sinem Karipcin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Amjad Hossain
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. John Y. Phelps
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Fethiye Sinem Karipcin.

Additional information

Capsule

Medically justified refusal to provide ovulation induction to patients with diminished ovarian reserve is legally and ethically permissible but requires cautious application.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Karipcin, F.S., Hossain, A. & Phelps, J.Y. A legal-ethical analysis of reproductive endocrinologists’ right to refuse ovulation induction to patients with diminished ovarian reserve. J Assist Reprod Genet 28, 1105–1109 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-011-9636-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-011-9636-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation