Peipert, B. J., Kuhlman, J. T., & Feinberg, E. C. (2025). The illusion of reproductive choice: how restorative reproductive medicine violates reproductive autonomy and informed consent. Fertility and sterility, 124(4), 630-632. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2025.07.023
Peipert BJ, Kuhlman JT, Feinberg EC. The illusion of reproductive choice: how restorative reproductive medicine violates reproductive autonomy and informed consent. Fertility and sterility. 2025;124(4):630-632. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2025.07.023
Peipert, Benjamin J., et al. "The illusion of reproductive choice: how restorative reproductive medicine violates reproductive autonomy and informed consent." Fertility and sterility, vol. 124, no. 4, 2025, pp. 630-632.
For EndNote, Zotero or Mendeley:
License
No open license is recorded for this paper. Reuse terms are set by the publisher.
Division of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois.000e0be47
Linked to ROR, the Research Organization Registry
RRM Academy Synopsis
Restorative reproductive medicine limits patient choice, authors argue
Hostile to restorative reproductive medicine
Three authors argue that restorative reproductive medicine limits patient choice and informed consent. Two IVF doctors (reproductive endocrinologists) and a Ph.D. from a counseling practice wrote this 2025 opinion piece. They say RRM repeats standard care. They say its stance on IVF limits the treatments patients are offered.
Key Findings
The authors say hormone tests, cycle tracking, ovulation induction and laparoscopy may be valid but already belong to reproductive endocrinology.
The authors say RRM differs mainly through moral opposition to IVF, and they trace its roots to the antiabortion "personhood" movement.
They name absent vas deferens from birth and blocked fallopian tubes as two examples of causes they say RRM methods cannot overcome.
They say studies claiming RRM matches IVF frequently leave out a proper comparison group and lack peer review.
They say patients may be told to allow 24 months, which they call excessive for a potentially ineffective approach, and that RRM providers have an ethical duty to disclose moral objections.
Interpretation
The piece is a three-page opinion article in the journal's Inklings section. The authors report no new data. Their IVF success figure comes from a registry's online prediction tool, and their statements about RRM's motives cite a news opinion piece and an issue brief. The piece names no specific comparison study and gives no source for the 24-month timeline. Readers get the authors' characterization of RRM, stated as their position.
RRM Context
RRM describes itself as working with the body's own cycle, seeking the root cause, evaluating both partners and charting cycles before treating. The authors grant that some individual practices may be valid and place the difference in RRM's view of IVF. RRM separates care that resolves a cause from procedures that bypass it.
Our editorial summary of this paper, not the article's abstract.
00b30xv10