Fertility and Sterility
Volume 83, Issue 1 , Pages 61-67, January 2005

Screening practices and beliefs of assisted reproductive technology programs

  • Andrea D. Gurmankin, Ph.D., M.Be.

      Affiliations

    • Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts
    • Corresponding Author InformationReprint requests: Andrea D. Gurmankin, Ph.D., Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, 44 Binney Street, Smith 253, Boston, MA 02115
  • ,
  • Arthur L. Caplan, Ph.D.

      Affiliations

    • Department of Medical Ethics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
  • ,
  • Andrea M. Braverman, Ph.D.

      Affiliations

    • Thomas Jefferson University Hospital and Pennsylvania Reproductive Associates, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Received 24 June 2003; received in revised form 4 June 2004; accepted 4 June 2004.

Objective

To explore assisted reproductive technology (ART) programs' beliefs about and practices for screening program candidates for the use of ART services.

Design

An anonymous, self-administered, mailed questionnaire.

Setting

U.S. ART programs.

Participant(s)

Directors of U.S. ART programs.

Main outcome measure(s)

Screening practices and beliefs, agreement with statements about screening rights and responsibility, information collected about candidates, and likelihood of turning away hypothetical candidates.

Result(s)

The majority of programs do not have a formal policy for screening candidates. The majority of program directors agree that they have a right and responsibility to screen candidates. On average, programs turn away 4% of candidates each year. The majority of programs report being very to extremely likely to deny treatment to the couples described in various scenarios, such as physical abuse, positive HIV status, and single parenthood. Significant variation was seen across programs in their likelihood of turning away various hypothetical candidates.

Conclusion(s)

There is substantial variation in ART programs' screening practices. These results highlight the need for increased debate over what constitutes inappropriate denial of access to services, and what are prudent, social, ethical, and medical judgments.

Key words:  IVF , access , screening

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 31.50 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

 This study was supported by the University of Pennsylvania Center for Bioethics gift fund.

 Andrea D. Gurmankin has full access to all the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

PII: S0015-0282(04)02600-7

doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2004.06.048

Refers to erratum:

Fertility and Sterility
Volume 83, Issue 1 , Pages 61-67, January 2005