Fertility treatment when the prognosis is very poor or futile: an Ethics Committee opinion
Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine
Committee members:Judith Daar, Jean Benward, Lee Collins, Joseph Davis, Owen Davis, Leslie Francis, Elena Gates, Elizabeth Ginsburg, Susan Gitlin, William Hurd, Sigal Klipstein, Laurence McCullough, Richard Reindollar, Ginny Ryan, Mark Sauer, Sean Tipton, Lynn Westphal, Julianne Zweifel, …
Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (2019). Fertility treatment when the prognosis is very poor or futile: an Ethics Committee opinion. Fertility and sterility. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2019.01.033
Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Fertility treatment when the prognosis is very poor or futile: an Ethics Committee opinion. Fertility and sterility. 2019. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2019.01.033
Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. "Fertility treatment when the prognosis is very poor or futile: an Ethics Committee opinion." Fertility and sterility, 2019.
For EndNote, Zotero or Mendeley:
Open access
Free to read
No reuse license
Free to read at the publisher (reported by Unpaywall and OpenAlex, not verified by RRM Academy)
RRM Academy Synopsis
Clinicians may ethically refuse futile fertility treatment, ASRM says
A 2019 ASRM Ethics Committee opinion holds that doctors may ethically refuse treatment with under a 1% chance of a live birth. It also holds that limited care may be offered for emotional benefit when risks are small.
Key Findings
The committee defines futile treatment as a "<1% chance" of live birth and very poor prognosis as odds of "1% to <5% per cycle."
The committee holds that refusing to offer, start, or continue treatment judged to have a <1% chance of success is "an appropriate exercise of professional integrity."
The committee finds that clinicians "may ethically offer" treatment they judge futile when risks are minimal and the patient wants a psychological benefit.
For very poor prognosis, the committee finds that clinicians "may justifiably proceed" on a limited basis and "may ethically refuse," if the decision is evidence-based.
The committee states that protecting success rates is "not an ethical basis" to refuse patients, and that financial benefit is "not an acceptable ground" for futile treatment.
Interpretation
This 2019 ASRM Ethics Committee opinion gives clinicians two permission structures: one for treatment judged futile, one for treatment judged to have a very poor prognosis. The authors note that a group's average odds are not the same as one patient's personal odds, so judgment on each case still belongs to the clinician. The opinion's examples apply to IVF and insemination cycles.
RRM Context
The futility test weighs a cycle's odds of live birth. It uses sperm availability, the female partner's age, and a prior poor response. Restorative reproductive medicine evaluates both partners' causes before it judges prognosis. NaProTechnology evaluation looks for a treatable cause before any cycle begins. IVF bypasses the reproductive system without resolving why conception fails.
Our editorial summary of this paper, not the article's abstract.
Abstract
The Ethics Committee recommends that in vitro fertilization (IVF) centers develop patient-centered policies regarding requests for futile treatment. In most cases, clear communication can avoid a direct conflict, but clinicians ethically may refuse to provide treatment believed to be futile or to carry a very poor prognosis. In certain instances, clinicians may provide limited treatment which they judge likely to be futile, but must be vigilant in their presentation of risks, benefits, and alternatives. This version replaces the previous published draft of this name (Fertil Steril 2012;98:e6-9).
Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, 2021
Ethics and Policy › Reproductive Ethics › Access to Treatment · Clinical Guidelines and Standards › Guidelines by Issuing Body › United States Professional Societies
Judith Daar, Jean Benward, Lee Collins, Joseph Davis, Owen Davis, Leslie Francis, Elena Gates, Elizabeth Ginsburg, Susan Gitlin, William Hurd, Sigal Klipstein, Laurence McCullough, Richard Reindollar, Ginny Ryan, Mark Sauer, Sean Tipton, Lynn Westphal, Julianne Zweifel, 0000-0003-0284-2845
J Daar, J Benward, L Collins, Joe Davis, Joey Davis, J Davis, O Davis, L Francis, E Gates, Liz Ginsburg, Beth Ginsburg, Betsy Ginsburg, E Ginsburg, Sue Gitlin, S Gitlin, Bill Hurd, Will Hurd, Billy Hurd, W Hurd, S Klipstein, Larry McCullough, L McCullough, Rick Reindollar, Dick Reindollar, Rich Reindollar, R Reindollar, G Ryan, M Sauer, S Tipton, L Westphal, J Zweifel
PMID 30871767 30871767 DOI 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2019.01.033 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2019.01.033 Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine et al. 2019, Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine 2019
Breaking Up with IVF Free for membersMidwife and former front-line IVF clinician Dr. Jennifer Mercier joins Dr. Naomi Whittaker for a candid Save the Uterus Club conversation. 
Masterclass in Endometriosis & Surgery 9 sectionsComprehensive guide for patients preparing for endometriosis surgery. 
Hormones Through the Lifespan Free for membersA comprehensive overview of hormonal health across a woman's life, menstrual cycles, common conditions, and the transition to menopause, presented by Dr. Ana Garcia, OB/GYN. 
