Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T05:51:30.890Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The epigenetic effects of assisted reproductive technologies: ethical considerations

Part of: DOHAD & IVF

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 May 2017

M.-C. Roy ,
C. Dupras  and
V. Ravitsky
M.-C. Roy*
Affiliation:
Bioethics Program, School of Public Health, University of Montreal, Montreal, QC, Canada
C. Dupras
Affiliation:
Bioethics Program, School of Public Health, University of Montreal, Montreal, QC, Canada
V. Ravitsky
Affiliation:
Bioethics Program, School of Public Health, University of Montreal, Montreal, QC, Canada
*
*Address for correspondence: M.-C. Roy, Bioethics Programs, Department of Social and Preventive Medicine, School of Public Health, University of Montréal, C.P. 6128, succ. Centre-ville, Montréal, QC, Canada H3C 3J7. (Email [email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The use of assisted reproductive technologies (ART) has increased significantly, allowing many coping with infertility to conceive. However, an emerging body of evidence suggests that ART could carry epigenetic risks for those conceived through the use of these technologies. In accordance with the Developmental Origins of Health and Disease hypothesis, ART could increase the risk of developing late-onset diseases through epigenetic mechanisms, as superovulation, fertilization methods and embryo culture could impair the embryo’s epigenetic reprogramming. Such epigenetic risks raise ethical issues for all stakeholders: prospective parents and children, health professionals and society. This paper focuses on ethical issues raised by the consideration of these risks when using ART. We apply two key ethical principles of North American bioethics (respect for autonomy and non-maleficence) and suggest that an ethical tension may emerge from conflicting duties to promote the reproductive autonomy of prospective parents on one hand, and to minimize risks to prospective children on the other. We argue that this tension is inherent to the entire enterprise of ART and thus cannot be addressed by individual clinicians in individual cases. We also consider the implications of the ‘non-identity problem’ in this context. We call for additional research that would allow a more robust evidence base for policy. We also call upon professional societies to provide clinicians with guidelines and educational resources to facilitate the communication of epigenetic risks associated with ART to patients, taking into consideration the challenges of communicating risk information whose validity is still uncertain.

Keywords

epigenetic risksethical implications of DOHaDIVF/ARTreproductive autonomy
Type
Original Article
Information
Journal of Developmental Origins of Health and Disease , Volume 8 , Issue 4: Themed Issue: Assisted Reproductive Treatments (ART) and DOHAD , August 2017 , pp. 436 - 442
Check for updates
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press and the International Society for Developmental Origins of Health and Disease 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Sullivan, EA, Zegers-Hochschild, F, Mansour, R, et al. International Committee for Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technologies (ICMART) world report: assisted reproductive technology 2004. Hum Reprod. 2013; 28, 1375–1390.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2. Sunderam, S, Kissin, DM, Crawford, S, et al. Assisted reproductive technology surveillance – United States, 2010. MMWR Surveill Summ. 2013; 62, 1–24.Google ScholarPubMed
3. Ventura-Juncá, P, Irarrázaval, I, Rolle, AJ, et al. In vitro fertilization (IVF) in mammals: epigenetic and developmental alterations. Scientific and bioethical implications for IVF in humans. Biol Res. 2015; 48, 1–13.Google Scholar
4. Daxinger, L, Whitelaw, E. Understanding transgenerational epigenetic inheritance via the gametes in mammals. Nat Rev Genet. 2012; 13, 153–162.Google Scholar
5. Beauchamp, TL, Childress, JF. Principles of Biomedical Ethics, 7th edn, 2012. Oxford University Press: Oxford.Google Scholar
6. Cantone, I, Fisher, AG. Epigenetic programming and reprogramming during development. Nat Struct Mol Biol. 2013; 20, 282–289.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7. Morgan, HD, Santos, F, Green, K, Dean, W, Reik, W. Epigenetic reprogramming in mammals. Hum Mol Genet. 2005; 14, R47–R58.Google Scholar
8. Hochberg, Z, Feil, R, Constancia, M, et al. Child health, developmental plasticity, and epigenetic programming. Endocr Rev. 2010; 32, 159–224.Google Scholar
9. Young, LE, Sinclair, KD, Wilmut, I. Large offspring syndrome in cattle and sheep. Rev Reprod. 1998; 3, 155–163.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10. Khosla, S, Dean, W, Brown, D, Reik, W, Feil, R. Culture of preimplantation mouse embryos affects fetal development and the expression of imprinted genes. Biol Reprod. 2001; 64, 918–926.Google Scholar
11. DeBaun, MR, Niemitz, EL, Feinberg, AP. Association of in vitro fertilization with Beckwith-Wiedemann syndrome and epigenetic alterations of LIT1 and H19. Am J Hum Genet. 2003; 72, 156–160.Google Scholar
12. Cox, GF, Bürger, J, Lip, V, et al. Intracytoplasmic sperm injection may increase the risk of imprinting defects. Am J Hum Genet. 2002; 71, 162–164.Google Scholar
13. Nygren, KG, Andersen, AN. Assisted reproductive technology in Europe, 1999. Results generated from European registers by ESHRE. Hum Reprod. 2002; 17, 3260–3274.Google Scholar
14. Chang, AS, Moley, KH, Wangler, M, Feinberg, AP, DeBaun, MR. Association between Beckwith-Wiedemann syndrome and assisted reproductive technology: a case series of 19 patients. Fertil Steril. 2005; 83, 349–354.Google Scholar
15. Gicquel, C, Gaston, V, Mandelbaum, J, et al. In vitro fertilization may increase the risk of Beckwith-Wiedemann syndrome related to the abnormal imprinting of the KCNQ1OT gene. Am J Hum Genet. 2003; 72, 1338–1341.Google Scholar
16. Maher, E, Brueton, L, Bowdin, S, et al. Beckwith-Wiedemann syndrome and assisted reproduction technology (ART). J Med Genet. 2003; 40, 62–64.Google Scholar
17. Ørstavik, KH, Eiklid, K, van der Hagen, CB, et al. Another case of imprinting defect in a girl with Angelman syndrome who was conceived by intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Am J Hum Genet. 2003; 72, 218–219.Google Scholar
18. Horsthemke, B, Ludwig, M. Assisted reproduction: the epigenetic perspective. Hum Reprod Update. 2005; 11, 473–482.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19. Seggers, J, Haadsma, ML, La Bastide-Van Gemert, S, et al. Is ovarian hyperstimulation associated with higher blood pressure in 4-year-old IVF offspring? Part I: multivariable regression analysis. Hum Reprod. 2014; 29, 502–509.Google Scholar
20. Chen, M. Altered glucose metabolism in mouse and humans conceived by IVF. Diabetes. 2014; 63, 3189–3198.Google Scholar
21. Hart, R, Norman, RJ. The longer-term health outcomes for children born as a result of IVF treatment: Part I – general health outcomes. Hum Reprod Update. 2013; 19, 232–243.Google Scholar
22. Ceelen, M, van Weissenbruch, MM, Vermeiden, JP, van Leeuwen, FE, Delemarre-van de Waal, HA. Cardiometabolic differences in children born after in vitro fertilization: follow-up study. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2008; 93, 1682–1688.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
23. Vrooman, LA, Bartolomei, MS. Can assisted reproductive technologies cause adult-onset disease? Evidence from human and mouse. Reprod Toxicol. 2017; 68, 72–84.Google Scholar
24. Brock, DW. Shaping future children: parental rights and societal interests. J Polit Philos. 2005; 13, 377–398.Google Scholar
25. Robertson, JA. Children of Choice: Freedom and the New Reproductive Technologies. 1996. Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ.Google Scholar
26. Quigley, M. A right to reproduce? Bioethics. 2010; 24, 403–411.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
27. Daar, JF. Accessing reproductive technologies: invisible barriers, indelible harms. Berkeley J Gender L Just. 2008; 23, 18–82.Google Scholar
28. Vloeberghs, V, Peeraer, K, Pexsters, A, D’Hooghe, T. Ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome and complications of ART. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2009; 23, 691–709.Google Scholar
29. Hunfeld, JAM, Passchier, J, Bolt, LLE, Buijsen, MAJM. Protect the child from being born: arguments against IVF from heads of the 13 licensed Dutch fertility centres, ethical and legal perspectives. J Reprod Infant Psychol. 2004; 22, 279–289.Google Scholar
30. Stern, JE, Cramer, CP, Garrod, A, Green, RM. Access to services at assisted reproductive technology clinics: a survey of policies and practices. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2001; 184, 591–597.Google Scholar
31. Stern, JE, Cramer, CP, Garrod, A, Green, RM. Attitudes on access to services at assisted reproductive technology clinics: comparisons with clinic policy. Fertil Steril. 2002; 77, 537–541.Google Scholar
32. Stern, JE, Cramer, CP, Green, RM, Garrod, A, DeVries, KO. Determining access to assisted reproductive technology: reactions of clinic directors to ethically complex case scenarios. Hum Reprod. 2003; 18, 1343–1352.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
33. Záchia, S, Knauth, D, Goldim, JR, et al. Assisted reproduction: what factors interfere in the professional’s decisions? Are single women an issue? BMC Womens Health. 2011; 11, 21–31.Google Scholar
34. Brion, M-JA, Leary, SD, Lawlor, DA, Smith, GD, Ness, AR. Modifiable maternal exposures and offspring blood rressure: a review of epidemiological studies of maternal age, diet, and smoking. Pediatr Res. 2008; 63, 593–598.Google Scholar
35. Drake, AJ, Reynolds, RM. Impact of maternal obesity on offspring obesity and cardiometabolic disease risk. Reproduction. 2010; 140, 387–398.Google Scholar
36. Bogardus, ST Jr, Holmboe, E, Jekel, JF. Perils, pitfalls, and possibilities in talking about medical risk. JAMA. 1999; 281, 1037–1041.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
37. Parfit, D. Chapter 16: The non-identity problem. In Reasons and Persons (ed. Parfit, D), 1984; pp. 351–378. Clarendon Press: Oxford.Google Scholar
38. Hope, T, McMillan, J. Physicians’ duties and the non-identity problem. Am J Bioeth. 2012; 12, 21–29.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
39. del Savio, L, Loi, M, Stupka, E. Epigenetics and future generations. Bioethics. 2015; 29, 580–587.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
40. Han, PKJ. Conceptual, methodological, and ethical problems in communicating uncertainty in clinical evidence. Med Care Res Rev. 2013; 70, 14S–36S.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
41. Amor, DJ, Halliday, J. A review of known imprinting syndromes and their association with assisted reproduction technologies. Hum Reprod. 2008; 23, 2826–2834.Google Scholar
42. Lidegaard, Ø, Pinborg, A, Andersen, AN. Imprinting diseases and IVF: Danish National IVF cohort study. Hum Reprod. 2005; 20, 950–954.Google Scholar
43. Doornbos, ME, Maas, SM, McDonnell, J, Vermeiden, JPW, Hennekam, RCM. Infertility, assisted reproduction technologies and imprinting disturbances: a Dutch study. Hum Reprod. 2007; 22, 2476–2480.Google Scholar
44. Bowdin, S, Allen, C, Kirby, G, et al. A survey of assisted reproductive technology births and imprinting disorders. Hum Reprod. 2007; 22, 3237–3240.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
45. Chen, Z, Robbins, KM, Wells, KD, Rivera, RM. Large offspring syndrome: a bovine model for the human loss-of-imprinting overgrowth syndrome Beckwith-Wiedemann. Epigenetics. 2013; 8, 591–601.Google Scholar
46. Ludwig, M, Katalinic, A, Gross, S, et al. Increased prevalence of imprinting defects in patients with Angelman syndrome born to subfertile couples. J Med Genet. 2005; 42, 289–291.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
47. Buckett, WM, Tan, SL. Congenital abnormalities in children born after assisted reproductive techniques: how much is associated with the presence of infertility and how much with its treatment? Fertil Steril. 2005; 84, 1318–1319.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
48. Dickens, BM, Cook, RJ. Dimensions of informed consent to treatment. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2004; 85, 309–314.Google Scholar
49. Johnson, CG, Levenkron, JC, Suchman, AL, Manchester, R. Does physician uncertainty affect patient satisfaction? J Gen Intern Med. 1988; 3, 144–149.Google Scholar
50. Ryan, GL, Sparks, AET, Sipe, CS, et al. A mandatory single blastocyst transfer policy with educational campaign in a United States IVF program reduces multiple gestation rates without sacrificing pregnancy rates. Fertil Steril. 2007; 88, 354–360.Google Scholar
51. Feuer, S, Rinaudo, P. From embryos to adults: a DOHaD perspective on in vitro fertilization and other assisted reproductive technologies. Healthcare. 2016; 4, 51–64.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed