Gestational surrogacy for a human immunodeficiency virus seropositive sperm donor: what are the ethics?

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Clinics that provide assisted reproductive technology (ART) are guided by general guidelines set forth by the American Society for Reproductive Medicine and its Ethics Committee and are free to set their own policies within those guidelines. This article presents a case in which a university clinic was presented with a novel request. A same-sex male couple, both positive for the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), asked to use one of the couple's sperm to establish a pregnancy in an unrelated gestational surrogate through in vitro fertilization, intracytoplasmic sperm injection, and embryo transfer. The couple's argument in favor of such a plan was that no documented case of HIV seroconversion had so far occurred in recipients of gametes from HIV-positive donors. Since gestational surrogates routinely accept the risks inherent in pregnancy and childbearing, an informed surrogate should be allowed to accept the risks of such an arrangement. They further argued that if no clinic were willing to provide such services, data regarding seroconversion would never be obtained. The university ethics committee examined the fertility clinic's policies and found the clinic's refusal to provide such services to be completely consistent with its policy that allows providing services to HIV-discordant couples, same-sex couples, and gestational surrogates, but that always acts to protect the surrogate from exposure to infectious risk.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)138-140
Number of pages3
JournalJournal of the American Medical Women's Association (1972)
Volume58
Issue number3
StatePublished - 2003

Fingerprint

Ethics
Spermatozoa
HIV
Ethics Committees
Guidelines
Pregnancy
Assisted Reproductive Techniques
Intracytoplasmic Sperm Injections
Embryo Transfer
Fertilization in Vitro
Germ Cells
Fertility
Seroconversion

Cite this

@article{7b8e4598369b4731bbb07768ab3a092a,
title = "Gestational surrogacy for a human immunodeficiency virus seropositive sperm donor: what are the ethics?",
abstract = "Clinics that provide assisted reproductive technology (ART) are guided by general guidelines set forth by the American Society for Reproductive Medicine and its Ethics Committee and are free to set their own policies within those guidelines. This article presents a case in which a university clinic was presented with a novel request. A same-sex male couple, both positive for the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), asked to use one of the couple's sperm to establish a pregnancy in an unrelated gestational surrogate through in vitro fertilization, intracytoplasmic sperm injection, and embryo transfer. The couple's argument in favor of such a plan was that no documented case of HIV seroconversion had so far occurred in recipients of gametes from HIV-positive donors. Since gestational surrogates routinely accept the risks inherent in pregnancy and childbearing, an informed surrogate should be allowed to accept the risks of such an arrangement. They further argued that if no clinic were willing to provide such services, data regarding seroconversion would never be obtained. The university ethics committee examined the fertility clinic's policies and found the clinic's refusal to provide such services to be completely consistent with its policy that allows providing services to HIV-discordant couples, same-sex couples, and gestational surrogates, but that always acts to protect the surrogate from exposure to infectious risk.",
author = "Karen Adams",
year = "2003",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "58",
pages = "138--140",
journal = "Journal of the American Medical Women's Association (1972)",
issn = "0091-7427",
publisher = "American Medical Women's Association",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Gestational surrogacy for a human immunodeficiency virus seropositive sperm donor

T2 - what are the ethics?

AU - Adams, Karen

PY - 2003

Y1 - 2003

N2 - Clinics that provide assisted reproductive technology (ART) are guided by general guidelines set forth by the American Society for Reproductive Medicine and its Ethics Committee and are free to set their own policies within those guidelines. This article presents a case in which a university clinic was presented with a novel request. A same-sex male couple, both positive for the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), asked to use one of the couple's sperm to establish a pregnancy in an unrelated gestational surrogate through in vitro fertilization, intracytoplasmic sperm injection, and embryo transfer. The couple's argument in favor of such a plan was that no documented case of HIV seroconversion had so far occurred in recipients of gametes from HIV-positive donors. Since gestational surrogates routinely accept the risks inherent in pregnancy and childbearing, an informed surrogate should be allowed to accept the risks of such an arrangement. They further argued that if no clinic were willing to provide such services, data regarding seroconversion would never be obtained. The university ethics committee examined the fertility clinic's policies and found the clinic's refusal to provide such services to be completely consistent with its policy that allows providing services to HIV-discordant couples, same-sex couples, and gestational surrogates, but that always acts to protect the surrogate from exposure to infectious risk.

AB - Clinics that provide assisted reproductive technology (ART) are guided by general guidelines set forth by the American Society for Reproductive Medicine and its Ethics Committee and are free to set their own policies within those guidelines. This article presents a case in which a university clinic was presented with a novel request. A same-sex male couple, both positive for the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), asked to use one of the couple's sperm to establish a pregnancy in an unrelated gestational surrogate through in vitro fertilization, intracytoplasmic sperm injection, and embryo transfer. The couple's argument in favor of such a plan was that no documented case of HIV seroconversion had so far occurred in recipients of gametes from HIV-positive donors. Since gestational surrogates routinely accept the risks inherent in pregnancy and childbearing, an informed surrogate should be allowed to accept the risks of such an arrangement. They further argued that if no clinic were willing to provide such services, data regarding seroconversion would never be obtained. The university ethics committee examined the fertility clinic's policies and found the clinic's refusal to provide such services to be completely consistent with its policy that allows providing services to HIV-discordant couples, same-sex couples, and gestational surrogates, but that always acts to protect the surrogate from exposure to infectious risk.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0042784962&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0042784962&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

C2 - 2003117461

AN - SCOPUS:0042784962

VL - 58

SP - 138

EP - 140

JO - Journal of the American Medical Women's Association (1972)

JF - Journal of the American Medical Women's Association (1972)

SN - 0091-7427

IS - 3

ER -