Book contents
- 50 Big Debates in Reproductive Medicine
- Series page
- 50 Big Debates in Reproductive Medicine
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Contributors
- Foreword
- Introduction
- Section I Limits for IVF
- 1A Female Age 42 Years Should Be the Upper Limit for Conventional IVF/ICSI Treatment
- 1B Female Age 42 Years Should Be the Upper Limit for Conventional IVF/ICSI Treatment
- 2A Women with a BMI over 40 Should Be Refused Fertility Treatment
- 2B Women with a BMI over 40 Should Be Refused Fertility Treatment
- 3A Female Age of Menopause Is a Fair Limit for Ovum Donation
- 3B Female Age of Menopause Is a Fair Limit for Ovum Donation
- 4A Social Egg Freezing Should Be Available Up To the Age of 40 Years
- 4B Social Egg Freezing Should Be Available Up To the Age of 40 Years
- Section II IVF Add-ons
- Section III The Best Policy
- Section IV Embryology
- Section V Ethics and Statistics
- Section VI Male-factor Infertility
- Section VII Genetics
- Section VIII Ovarian Stimulation
- Section IX Hormones and the Environment
- Index
- References
1B - Female Age 42 Years Should Be the Upper Limit for Conventional IVF/ICSI Treatment
Against
from Section I - Limits for IVF
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 25 November 2021
By
Book contents
- 50 Big Debates in Reproductive Medicine
- Series page
- 50 Big Debates in Reproductive Medicine
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Contributors
- Foreword
- Introduction
- Section I Limits for IVF
- 1A Female Age 42 Years Should Be the Upper Limit for Conventional IVF/ICSI Treatment
- 1B Female Age 42 Years Should Be the Upper Limit for Conventional IVF/ICSI Treatment
- 2A Women with a BMI over 40 Should Be Refused Fertility Treatment
- 2B Women with a BMI over 40 Should Be Refused Fertility Treatment
- 3A Female Age of Menopause Is a Fair Limit for Ovum Donation
- 3B Female Age of Menopause Is a Fair Limit for Ovum Donation
- 4A Social Egg Freezing Should Be Available Up To the Age of 40 Years
- 4B Social Egg Freezing Should Be Available Up To the Age of 40 Years
- Section II IVF Add-ons
- Section III The Best Policy
- Section IV Embryology
- Section V Ethics and Statistics
- Section VI Male-factor Infertility
- Section VII Genetics
- Section VIII Ovarian Stimulation
- Section IX Hormones and the Environment
- Index
- References
Summary
I was delighted when asked to write against the proposal to deny women aged 42 years or more the chance of their own genetic motherhood. Indeed, it is challenging to imagine the points that my opposing author will use to try and limit a woman’s reproductive choice! To debate the matter we need to 1) examine the IVF/ICSI livebirth rate for women in their 40s, 2) consider the risks to the health of these mothers and their baby(ies) and what can be done to mitigate any concerns, and 3) contemplate the grounds for denying such treatment, and the offered alternatives (childlessness?).
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- 50 Big Debates in Reproductive Medicine , pp. 5 - 7Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2021
References
Gunnala, V, Irani, M, Melnick, A, Rosenwaks, Z, Spandorfer, S. One thousand seventy-eight autologous IVF cycles in women 45 years and older: the largest single-center cohort to date. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2018;35(3):435–40.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ubaldi, FM, Cimadomo, D, Capalbo, A, et al. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis for aneuploidy testing in women older than 44 years: a multicenter experience. Fertil Steril. 2017;107(5):1173–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sydsjö, G, Lindell Pettersson, M, Bladh, M, Skoog Svanberg, A, Lampic, C, Nedstrand, E. Evaluation of risk factors’ importance on adverse pregnancy and neonatal outcomes in women aged 40 years or older. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2019;19(1):92.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Prepregnancy counselling. ACOG Committee Opinion No. 762. Obstet Gynecol. 2019;133:e78–9.Google Scholar
Savasi, VM, Mandia, L, Laoreti, A, Cetin, I. Maternal and fetal outcomes in oocyte donation pregnancies. Hum Reprod Update. 2016;22(5):620–33.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed