The False Promise of Restorative Reproductive Medicine-Restricting Access to Care in the Name of "Natural" Medicine

JAMA, 335(3), 211-212

DOI 10.1001/jama.2025.22841 PMID 41405900

Abstract

Infertility affects 1 in 6 people globally (and up to a third of physicians) and is recognized by the World Health Organization and the American Medical Association as a disease. Since 1978, the development of assisted reproductive technology (ART), which is defined as fertility treatments in which gametes or embryos are handled in vitro, has made it possible to overcome otherwise insurmountable barriers to conception and has led to the birth of more than 10 million children worldwide.

Topics

restorative reproductive medicine critique JAMA viewpoint, RRM versus assisted reproductive technology fertility treatment, Liao Kallen false promise restorative reproductive medicine, natural medicine fertility treatment access restriction, NaProTECHNOLOGY critique evidence-based fertility care, RRM ideology restricting IVF access policy, restorative reproductive medicine natural fertility claims debate, assisted reproductive technology versus restorative medicine ethics, fertility treatment access restriction religious ideology, NaProTECHNOLOGY effectiveness claims JAMA critique
PMID 41405900 41405900 DOI 10.1001/jama.2025.22841 10.1001/jama.2025.22841

Cite this article

Liao C, Himel R, & Kallen AN (2026). The False Promise of Restorative Reproductive Medicine-Restricting Access to Care in the Name of "Natural" Medicine. *JAMA*, *335*(3), 211-212. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2025.22841

Related articles