Current opinion in obstetrics & gynecology · 2023
The impact of the Dobbs decision on in-vitro fertilization and fertility care.
ОбзорСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Ulker Ashley, Evans M Blake, Craig LaTasha B
Аннотация
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The 2022 Supreme Court ruling in Dobbs vs Jackson marks a frightening new reality in America. Physicians and patients have been left confused and concerned regarding the broader implications of this ruling. Now that the constitutional right to an abortion has been overturned and the power has been relinquished to individual states, there is justifiable concern regarding the impact on in-vitro fertilization (IVF). This review explores the ways IVF and fertility care are at risk in the context of our new reality.
RECENT FINDINGS: The decision to overturn the right to an abortion without specifying a viability standard opens the door to interpretation of when 'life' begins. Laws that do not specifically exempt IVF, or that include language suggesting that 'life begins at fertilization' pose a real threat to IVF. The potential for personhood laws poses a threat to embryo freezing and disposition, preimplantation genetic testing and culpability among other concerns.
SUMMARY: Limitations to IVF may become an unintended consequence to the Dobbs decision, making IVF less efficient, more costly and unsafe, and inevitably limiting access to care. It is therefore crucial that public health legislation be rooted in science and not dictated by religion or politics. Physicians must act alongside legislators to protect reproductive freedom and access to care.
RECENT FINDINGS: The decision to overturn the right to an abortion without specifying a viability standard opens the door to interpretation of when 'life' begins. Laws that do not specifically exempt IVF, or that include language suggesting that 'life begins at fertilization' pose a real threat to IVF. The potential for personhood laws poses a threat to embryo freezing and disposition, preimplantation genetic testing and culpability among other concerns.
SUMMARY: Limitations to IVF may become an unintended consequence to the Dobbs decision, making IVF less efficient, more costly and unsafe, and inevitably limiting access to care. It is therefore crucial that public health legislation be rooted in science and not dictated by religion or politics. Physicians must act alongside legislators to protect reproductive freedom and access to care.