Response to "The illusion of reproductive choice: how restorative reproductive medicine violates reproductive autonomy and informed consent"

Stanford JB, Parnell TA, Minjeur M

doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2025.10.014

Fertility and sterility, 125(1), 177, 2026

Response to "The illusion of reproductive choice: how restorative reproductive medicine violates reproductive autonomy and informed consent"

Joseph B Stanford , Petra Frank-Herrmann , C Gnoth

Author affiliations (5)

University of Utah ROR
Department of Gynaecological Endocrinology and Fertility Disorders, University of Heidelberg, Vossstrasse 9, 69115 Heidelberg, Germany. petra.frank-herrmann@med.uni-heidelberg.de ROR
Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf ROR
University of British Columbia ROR
Radiant Clinic, Cedar Rapids, Iowa.

DOI10.1016/j.fertnstert.2025.10.014 PMID41475698

Read at source

Abstract

Peipert et al. (1) claim that restorative reproductive medicine (RRM) originated as a political and religious movement with the purpose to limit access to in vitro fertilization (IVF). In so doing, they mischaracterize the origin, development, and aims of RRM, as articulated by the International Institute for Restorative Reproductive Medicine, founded in 2000. They do not refer to any peer-reviewed medical literature published by clinicians and researchers working to develop RRM. Objecting that certain political or economic interests promote RRM (or, alternatively, IVF) does not constitute the basis for an evidence-based scientific critique or discussion. Thus, their editorial falls short of a serious effort to understand RRM scientifically.

Topics

Ethics/Philosophy > Informed Consent > Restorative Reproductive Medicine RRM Methods > Advocacy > Professional Debate Body Literacy > Education > Patient Informed Consent

Frank-Herrmann restorative reproductive medicine autonomy response, RRM reproductive choice informed consent rebuttal, restorative reproductive medicine patient autonomy defense, Frank-Herrmann Gnoth Freundl fertility sterility letter, restorative reproductive medicine ethical defense, informed consent infertility treatment RRM response, reproductive autonomy RRM clinical practice defense, fertility awareness based methods reproductive medicine ethics, RRM infertility informed consent patient choice, restorative reproductive medicine criticism response letter

PMID 41475698 41475698 DOI 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2025.10.014 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2025.10.014

Cite this article

Peipert, B. J., Kuhlman, J. T., & Feinberg, E. C. (2026). Reply of the authors: "Response to "The illusion of reproductive choice: how restorative reproductive medicine violates reproductive autonomy and informed consent"" by Frank-Herrmann et al. *Fertility and sterility*, *125*(1), 179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2025.10.029

Response to "The illusion of reproductive choice: how restorative reproductive medicine violates reproductive autonomy and informed consent"

Abstract

Topics

Cite this article

Related articles

"Response to ""The illusion of reproductive choice: how restorative reproductive medicine violates informed consent for infertility treatment"""

Recurrent pregnancy loss: a committee opinion

The effectiveness and safety of restorative reproductive medicine (RRM) compared to assisted reproductive technology or medically unassisted conception: a systematic review

Neonatal characteristics of children conceived with in vitro fertilization or intrauterine insemination compared with sibling births from unassisted conceptions