Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Participation in Investigational Fertility Preservation Research: A Feminist Research Ethics Approach

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Oncofertility

Part of the book series: Cancer Treatment and Research ((CTAR,volume 156))

Abstract

The goals and rhetoric of The Oncofertility Consortium (National Institutes of Health. NIH Roadmap for Medical Research. Funded Research: Interdisciplinary Research, Interdisciplinary Research Consortium. http://nihroadmap.nih.gov/interdisciplinary/fundedresearch.asp. Accessed August 25, 2009) are aimed toward preserving cancer patients’ reproductive choices and facilitating their reproductive autonomy after cancer. While the end goals of oncofertility research are oriented toward safeguarding the possibility of biological reproduction for women and girls facing cancer treatments that may affect their fertility, considerable basic and clinical research is still needed in order for oocyte cryopreservation, in vitro follicle maturation, and ovarian tissue cryopreservation to become established fertility preservation techniques. From a feminist research ethics perspective, ethical standards for conducting both basic and clinical research must not only include but also go beyond ensuring institutional review board approval of human subjects research and collating evidence of safety and efficacy. To proceed with fertility preservation research in an ethical and just manner, it is also important to ask (1) on whose bodies is fertility preservation research dependant and (2) in selecting research subject populations, how should researchers balance the risks and benefits to prospective participants? This chapter applies a feminist research ethics approach to the oncofertility context, with a particular focus on the sources of oocytes and ovarian tissue for investigational fertility preservation research and the potential vulnerabilities of participating in this research.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 299.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. National Institutes of Health. NIH Roadmap for Medical Research. Funded Research: Interdisciplinary Research, Interdisciplinary Research Consortium. http://nihroadmap.nih.gov/interdisciplinary/fundedresearch.asp. Accessed August 25, 2009.

  2. Backhus LE, Kondapalli LA, Chang J, Coutifaris C, Kazer R, Woodruff TK. Oncofertility consortium consensus statement: guidelines for ovarian tissue cryopreservation. In: Woodruff TK, Snyder KA, Eds. Oncofertility: fertility preservation for cancer survivors. New York: Springer; 2007:235–9.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  3. ACOG Committee on Gynecologic Practice. Ovarian tissue and oocyte cryopreservation. Obstet Gynecol. 2008; 111(5):1255–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. The Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Fertility preservation and reproduction in cancer patients. Fertil Steril. 2005; 83(6):1622–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Fallat ME, Hutter J, the Committee on Bioethics SoHO, and Section on Surgery. Preservation of fertility in pediatric and adolescent patients with cancer. Pediatrics. 2008; 121(5):1461–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. FIGO Committee for the Ethical Aspects of Human Reproduction and Women’s Health. Ethical considerations and recommendations on oocyte and ovarian cryopreservation. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2006; 92:335–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Lee SJ, Schover LR, Partridge AH, et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology recommendations on fertility preservation in cancer patients. J Clin Oncol. 2006; 24(18):2917–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. The Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine and the Practice Committee of the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology. Ovarian tissue and oocyte cryopreservation. Fertil Steril. 2008; 90(Suppl 3):S241–6.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Thompson C. Making parents: the ontological choreography of reproductive technologies. Cambridge: The MIT Press; 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Rapp R. Testing women, testing the fetus: the social impact of amniocentesis. New York: Routledge; 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Becker G. The elusive embryo: how women and men approach new reproductive technologies. Berkeley, Los Angeles: University of California Press; 2000.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  12. Franklin S. Embodied progress: a cultural account of assisted conception. London, New York: Routledge; 1997.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  13. Inhorn MC, van Balen F, Eds. Infertility around the globe: new thinking on childlessness, gender, and reproductive technologies. Berkeley: University of California Press; 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Handwerker L. The hen that can’t lay an egg: conceptions of female infertility in modern China. In: Terry J, Urla J, Eds. Deviant bodies: critical perspectives on difference in science and popular culture. Bloomington: Indiana University Press; 1995:358–86.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Throsby K. When IVF fails: feminism, infertility and the negotiation of normality. New York: Palgrave Macmillan; 2004.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  16. Dickenson DL. Property and women’s alienation from their own reproductive labour. Bioethics. 2001; 15(3):205–17.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Dickenson DL. The lady vanishes: what’s missing from the stem cell debate. Bioeth Inq 2006; 3:43–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Dodds S. Women, commodification, and embryonic stem cell research. In: Humber J, Almeder RF, Eds. Biomedical ethics reviews: stem cell research. Totowa, NJ: Humana Press; 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Waldby C. Oocyte markets: women’s reproductive work in embryonic stem cell research. New Genet Soc. 2008; 27(1):19–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Cohen CB. Leaps and boundaries: expanding oversight of human stem cell research. In: Holland S, Lebacqz K, Zoloth L, Eds. The human embryonic stem cell debate: science, ethics and public policy. Cambridge: The MIT Press; 2001:209–22.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Franklin S. Embryonic economies: the double reproductive value of stem cells. BioSocieties 2006; 1:71–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Ballantyne A, de Lacey S. Wanted: egg donors for research: a research ethics approach to donor recruitment and compensation. Int J Fem Approaches Bioeth. 2008; 1(2):145–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Harwood K. Egg freezing: a breakthrough for reproductive autonomy? Bioethics. 2009; 23(1):39–46.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Zoloth L, Backhus L, Woodruff T. Waiting to be born: the ethical implications of the generation of “NUBorn” and “NUAge” mice from pre-pubertal ovarian tissue. Am J Bioeth. 2008; 8(6):21–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Woodruff, personal communication, August 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Klock SC, Zhang JX, Kazer RR. Fertility preservation for female cancer patients: early clinical experience. Fertil Steril. 2010; 94(1):149–55.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. The Oncofertility Consortium. The National Physicians Cooperative (NPC). http://oncofertility.northwestern.edu/physicians/about-the-national-physicians-coop-npc. Accessed August 30, 2009.

  28. de Melo-Martin I, Cholst IN. Researching human oocyte cryopreservation: ethical issues. Fertil Steril. 2008; 89(3):523–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Nisker J, Baylis F, McLeod C. Choice in fertility preservation in girls and adolescent women with cancer. Cancer Suppl. 2006; 107(7):1686–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Cohen CB. Some perils of “Waiting to be born”: fertility preservation in girls facing certain treatments for cancer. Am J Bioeth. 2008; 8(6):30–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Oktay K, Cil AP, Zhang J. Who is the best candidate for oocyte cryopreservation research? Fertil Steril. 2010; 93(1):13–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Savulescu J, Goold I. Freezing eggs for lifestyle reasons. Am J Bioeth. 2008; 8(6):32–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. The Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Informed consent and the use of gametes and embryos for research. Fertil Steril. 2004; 82(Suppl. 1):S251–2.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Chian R, Tan S. Maturational and developmental competence of cumulus-free immature human oocytes derived from stimulated and intracytoplasmic sperm injection cycles. Reprod Biomed Online. 2002; 5(2):125–32.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Kuwayama M, Vajta G, Kato O, Leibo SP. Highly efficient vitrification method for cryopreservation of human oocytes. Reprod Biomed Online. 2005; 11(3):300–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Cobo A, Domingo J, Pérez S, Crespo J, Remohí J, Pellicer A. Vitrification: an effective new approach to oocyte banking and preserving fertility in cancer patients. Clin Transl Oncol. 2008; 10(5):268–73.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2005 Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) Report: National Summary. Atlanta: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. Egg sharing for research. HFEA Code of Practice http://cop.hfea.gov.uk/cop/COPContent.aspx?M=1&S=117&SM=501#content. Accessed August 30, 2009.

  39. New York State Task Force on Life and Law. Assisted reproductive technologies: analysis and recommendations for public policy. New York: New York State Task Force on Life and Law; 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Adsuar N, Zweifel JE, Pritts EA, Davidson MA, Olive DL, Lindheim SR. Assessment of wishes regarding disposition of oocytes and embryo management among ovum donors in an anonymous egg donation program. Fertil Steril. 2005; 84(5):1513–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Kalfoglou AL, Geller G. A follow-up study with oocyte donors exploring their experiences, knowledge, and attitudes about the use of their oocytes and the outcome of donation. Fertil Steril. 2000; 74(4):660–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Rabin RC. As demand for donor eggs soars, high prices stir ethical concerns. NY Times. 2007 May 15.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Empire State Stem Cell Board. Statement of the Empire State Stem Cell Board on the Compensation of Oocyte Donors. http://stemcell.ny.gov/docs/ESSCB_Statement_on_Compensation_of_Oocyte_Donors.pdf. Accessed August 27, 2009.

  44. Hansen KR, Knowlton NS, Thyer AC, Charleston JS, Soules MR, Klein NA. A new model of reproductive aging: the decline in ovarian non-growing follicle number from birth to menopause. Hum Reprod. 2008; 23(3):699–708.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. The Boston Women’s Health Book Collective. Our bodies, our selves: menopause. New York: Touchstone; 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Brinton LA, Moghissi KS, Scoccia B, Westhoff CL, Lamb EJ. Ovulation induction and cancer risk. Fertil Steril. 2005; 83(2):261–74.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Klip H, van Leeuwen FE, Schats R, Burger CW. and for the OMEGA project group. Risk of benign gynaecological diseases and hormonal disorders according to responsiveness to ovarian stimulation in IVF: a follow-up study of 8714 women. Hum Reprod. 2003; 18(9):1951–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Mahdavi A, Pejovic T, Nezhat F. Induction of ovulation and ovarian cancer: a critical review of the literature. Fertil Steril. 2006; 85(4):819–26.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Salhab M, Al Sarakbi W, Mokbel K. In vitro fertilization and breast cancer risk: a review. Int J Fertil Womens Med. 2005; 50(6):259–66.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by the oncofertility consortium NIH 8UL1DE019587, 5RL1HD058296.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Bioethics, Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Cleveland, OH, USA

    Michelle L. McGowan

Authors
  1. Michelle L. McGowan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michelle L. McGowan .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Northwestern University, Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, 60611-3015, Illinois, USA

    Teresa K. Woodruff

  2. Northwestern University, Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, 60611-3015, Illinois, USA

    Laurie Zoloth

  3. Northwestern University, Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, 60611-3015, Illinois, USA

    Lisa Campo-Engelstein

  4. Northwestern University, Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, 60611-3015, Illinois, USA

    Sarah Rodriguez

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2010 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

McGowan, M.L. (2010). Participation in Investigational Fertility Preservation Research: A Feminist Research Ethics Approach. In: Woodruff, T., Zoloth, L., Campo-Engelstein, L., Rodriguez, S. (eds) Oncofertility. Cancer Treatment and Research, vol 156. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-6518-9_16

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-6518-9_16

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4419-6517-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4419-6518-9

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation