Advertisement

Today's Research, Tomorrows Cures: The Ethical Implications of Oncofertility

  • Leilah E. Backhus
  • Laurie Zoloth
Part of the Cancer Treatment and Research book series (CTAR, volume 138)

In contemporary society, translational medical research is the name of hope itself. For many, advances in modern medicine can be seen as a steady progression of science over dreadful and intractable illnesses, especially illness of children and young adults. Advances in the creation of families and protection of children have most clearly marked medicine’s success. Yet every scientific discovery and medical advance carries with it the inevitable dilemmas of choice and power. This chapter will look carefully at the effect on treatment when two trajectories of translational research converge to form a new field of inquiry—the field of oncofertility—and explore the ethical and social implications of the power that such research will create.

Keywords

Ovarian Tissue Stem Cell Research Fertility Preservation Ethical Implication Premature Ovarian Failure 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Beckman CRB, Ling FW, Laube DW, et al. Chapter 39: Infertility In: Obstetrics and Gynecology, fourth edition. Lippincott, Williams, and Wilkins, 2002:494–507.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Assisted reproductive technology success rates for 2004. National Summary and Fertility Clinic Reports. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/ART/index.htm. Accessed March 17, 2007.
  3. 3.
    American Cancer Society. Facts and figures 2003. Available at http://www.cancer.org/docroot/STT/stt_0.asp. Accessed March 17, 2007.
  4. 4.
    Sonmezer Ml, Oktay K. Fertility preservation in female patents. Hum Reprod Update 2004;10:251–266.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Marhhom E, Cohen I. Fertility preservation options for women with malignancies. Obstet Gynecol Surv 2007;62:58–72.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Fertility preservation and reproduction in cancer patients. Fertil Steril 2005;83:1622–1628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine and the Committee of the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology. Ovarian tissue and oocyte cryopreservation. Fertil Steril 2006;86:S142–S147.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wallace WHB, Anderson RA, Irvine DS. Fertility preservation for young patients with cancer: who is at risk and what can be offered? Lancet Oncol 2005;4:209–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Robertson JA. Cancer and fertility: ethical and legal challenges. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 2005;34:104–106.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Xu M, Kreeger PK, Shea LD, et al. Tissue engineered follicles produce live, fertile offspring. Tissue Eng 2006;12:2739–2746.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Oktay K, Sonmezer M. Ovarian tissue banking for cancer patients: fertility preservation not just ovarian cryopreservation. Hum Reprod 2004;19:477–480.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lee SJ, Schover LR, Partridge AH, et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology recommendations of fertility preservation in cancer patients. J Clin Oncol 2006;24:2917–2931.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sklar CA, Mertens AC, Mitby P, et al. Premature menopause in survivors of childhood cancer; a report from the childhood cancer survivor study. J Natl Cancer Inst 2006;98:890–896.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Brock DW. Funding new reproductive technologies: should they be included in health insurance benefit packages? In: Cohen CB, editor. New ways of making babies: the case of egg donation. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1996:213–230.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Robertson JA. The presumptive primacy of procreative liberty. In: Children of choice: freedom and the new reproductive technologies. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994:23–42.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Patrizio P, Butts S, Caplan A. Ovarian tissue preservation and future fertility: emerging technologies and ethical considerations. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 2005;34:107–110.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Crockin SL. Legal issues related to parenthood after cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 2005;34;111–113.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Grundy R, Gosden RG, Hweitt M, et al. Fertility preservation for children treated for cancer (1): scientific advances and research dilemmas. Arch Dis Child 2001;84:355–359.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Robertson, JA. Procreative liberty, harm to offspring, and assisted reproduction. Am J Law Med 2004;30:7–40.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Department of Health and Human Services. 45 CFR §46.401–408. Revised June 18, 1991.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Whittle A, Shah S, Wilfond B, et al. Institutional review board practices regarding assent in pediatric research. Pediatrics. 2004:113;1747–1752.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Shah S, Whittle A, Wilfond B, et al. How do institutional review boards apply the federal risk and benefit standards for pediatric research? JAMA 2004;291:476–482.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Ethics in Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2nd ed. Available at: http://www.acog.org/from_home/publications/ethics/. Accessed March 17, 2007.
  24. 24.
    Dudzinski DM. Ethical Issues in fertility preservation for adolescent cancer survivors: oocyte and ovarian tissue cryopreservation. J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol 2004;17:97–102.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Weithhorn LA, Scherer DG. Children’s involvement in research participation decisions: psychological considerations. In: Grodin MA, Glantz LH, editors. Children as research subjects: science, ethics and law. New York: Oxford University Press, 1994:133–179.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Reichenberg A, Gross R, Weiser M, et al. Advancing paternal age and autism. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2006;63:1026–1032.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Chandra AJ, Martinez GM, Mosher WD, et al. Fertility, family planning, and reproductive health of U.S. women: data from the 2002 National Survey of Family Growth. Vital Heath Stat 2005:23.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Edwards R, Steptoe P. A matter of life: the story of a medical breakthrough. New York: William Morrow and Co., 1980.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    American Academy of Pediatrics, Committee on Drugs. Guidelines for the ethical conduct of studies to evaluate drugs in pediatric populations. Pediatrics 1995;95:286–294.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Leilah E. Backhus
    • 1
  • Laurie Zoloth
    • 2
  1. 1.University of ChicagoUSA
  2. 2.Northwestern UniversityChicagoUSA

Personalised recommendations