Financial "risk-sharing" or refund programs in assisted reproduction: an Ethics Committee opinion

Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine

doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.07.003

Fertility and sterility, 2016

Financial "risk-sharing" or refund programs in assisted reproduction: an Ethics Committee opinion

Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine

Committee members: Judith Daar, Jean Benward, Lee Collins, Joseph Davis , Leslie Francis, Elena Gates, Elizabeth Ginsburg, Sigal Klipstein, Barbara Koenig, Andrew La Barbera, Laurence McCullough, Richard Reindollar, Mark Sauer, Rebecca Sokol, Sean Tipton, Lynn Westphal

DOI 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.07.003 PMID 27450188

Abstract

Financial "risk-sharing" fee structures in assisted reproduction programs charge patients a higher initial fee but provide reduced fees for subsequent cycles and often a partial or complete refund if treatment fails. This opinion of the ASRM Ethics Committee analyzes the ethical issues raised by these fee structures, including patient selection criteria, conflicts of interest, success rate transparency, and patient informed consent. This document replaces the document of the same name, last published in 2013 (Fertil Steril 2013;100:334-6).

Topics

Ethics and Policy: Reproductive Ethics ART Ethics
Clinical Guidelines and Standards: Guidelines by Issuing Body United States Professional Societies
Cost and Access: Cost of Care Treatment Costs

Judith Daar, Jean Benward, Lee Collins, Joseph Davis, Leslie Francis, Elena Gates, Elizabeth Ginsburg, Sigal Klipstein, Barbara Koenig, Andrew La Barbera, Laurence McCullough, Richard Reindollar, Mark Sauer, Rebecca Sokol, Sean Tipton, Lynn Westphal, 0000-0003-0284-2845

J Daar, J Benward, L Collins, Joe Davis, Joey Davis, J Davis, L Francis, E Gates, Liz Ginsburg, Beth Ginsburg, Betsy Ginsburg, E Ginsburg, S Klipstein, Barb Koenig, B Koenig, Andy Barbera, Drew Barbera, A Barbera, Larry McCullough, L McCullough, Rick Reindollar, Dick Reindollar, Rich Reindollar, R Reindollar, M Sauer, Becky Sokol, R Sokol, S Tipton, L Westphal

PMID 27450188 27450188 DOI 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.07.003 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.07.003 Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine et al. 2016, Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine 2016

Cite this article

Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (2016). Financial "risk-sharing" or refund programs in assisted reproduction: an Ethics Committee opinion. Fertility and sterility. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.07.003

Reproductive Ethics · ART Ethics

Financial compensation of oocyte donors: an Ethics Committee opinion

Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, 2016 Fertility and sterility

Financial compensation of women donating oocytes for infertility therapy or for research is justified on ethical grounds and should acknowledge the time, inconvenience, and discomfort associated with screening, ovarian stimulation, and oocyte retrieval, and not vary according to the planned use of the oocytes, the number or quality of oocytes retrieved, the number or outcome of prior donation cycles, or the donor's ethnic or other personal characteristics. This document replaces the document of the same name, last published in 2007 (Fertil Steril 2007;88:305-9).

Reproductive Ethics · ART Ethics

Informing offspring of their conception by gamete or embryo donation: an Ethics Committee opinion

Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, 2018 Fertility and sterility

This document discusses the ethical implications of informing offspring about their conception using gamete or embryo donation. It replaces the 2013 ASRM Ethics Committee document of the same name (Fertil Steril 2013;100:45-9).

Reproductive Ethics · ART Ethics

Financial compensation of oocyte donors: an Ethics Committee opinion

Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, 2021 Fertility and sterility

Financial compensation of women donating oocytes for reproductive or research purposes is justified on ethical grounds and should acknowledge the time, inconvenience, and discomfort associated with screening, ovarian stimulation, oocyte retrieval, and postretrieval recovery and not vary according to the planned use of the oocytes or the number or quality of oocytes retrieved. This document replaces the document of the same name published in 2016.

Reproductive Ethics · ART Ethics

Human somatic cell nuclear transfer and reproductive cloning: an Ethics Committee opinion

Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, 2016 Fertility and sterility

This document presents arguments that conclude that it is unethical to use somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) for infertility treatment due to concerns about safety; the unknown impact of SCNT on children, families, and society; and the availability of other ethically acceptable means of assisted reproduction. This document replaces the ASRM Ethics Committee report titled, "Human somatic cell nuclear transfer and cloning," last published in Fertil Steril 2012;98:804-7.

Financial "risk-sharing" or refund programs in assisted reproduction: an Ethics Committee opinion

Abstract

Topics

Cite this article

Related articles

Financial compensation of oocyte donors: an Ethics Committee opinion

Informing offspring of their conception by gamete or embryo donation: an Ethics Committee opinion

Financial compensation of oocyte donors: an Ethics Committee opinion

Human somatic cell nuclear transfer and reproductive cloning: an Ethics Committee opinion