Having it all? Where are we with “social” egg freezing today?

2015 ◽  
Vol 31 (2) ◽  
pp. 126-127 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gillian Lockwood ◽  
Martin H. Johnson
Keyword(s):  
Egg Freezing ◽  
Social Egg Freezing

Emancipation on thin ice : Women’s autonomy, reproductive justice, and social egg freezing

2019 ◽  
Vol 22 (4) ◽  
pp. 357-371
Author(s):  
Michiel De Proost ◽  
Gily Coene
Keyword(s):  
Critical Analysis ◽  
Gender Inequalities ◽  
Reproductive Justice ◽  
Reproductive Autonomy ◽  
Quality Of Treatment ◽  
Intersectional Analysis ◽  
And Gender ◽  
Egg Freezing ◽  
Social Egg Freezing

Abstract A growing number of women in different countries are freezing their eggs as a way to preserve fertility not just for medical reasons, but for what have been referred to as ‘lifestyle’ or ‘social’ reasons. Ethical debates so far have often focused on reproductive autonomy and gender inequalities in society. Based on a critical analysis of the available studies that explore women’s experiences, we conclude that women’s choice to freeze their eggs is much more ambiguous than mainstream approaches to bioethics usually suggest. Furthermore, we point to a gap in the literature of social egg freezing regarding issues of reproductive justice, including the multiple and intersecting structural conditions that govern who has access to this technology, and tease out some issues that still need to be further explored, such as the outcomes and quality of treatment for non-normative users. Expanding the debate with an intersectional analysis makes visible, as we demonstrate, how techniques such as social egg freezing fit into, and contribute to the propagation of, neoliberal gendered, heteronormative, and racialised societies.

scholarly journals Knowledge and Attitudes of Nursing / Midwifery Students on Social Egg Freezing for Fertility Preservation

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zeynep Daşıkan ◽  
Aylin Taner
Keyword(s):  
Female Students ◽  
Knowledge Level ◽  
Face To Face ◽  
Job Opportunities ◽  
Study Results ◽  
Preservation Of Fertility ◽  
Age Range ◽  
Egg Freezing ◽  
Oocyte Freezing ◽  
Social Egg Freezing

Objective: The aim of this study is to to determine the knowledge level, and to investivagate the attitudes of nursing/midwifery female students about social egg freezing for the preservation of fertility. Methods: This research is descriptive. The research was carried out on 525 female students in nursing and midwifery department of a public university in Izmir between March and June 2018. The questionnaire prepared by the researchers was used to collect the data and the data were collected by face to face interview. Descriptive statistical methods were used to evaluate the data. Written permission was obtained from the Scientific Research and Publish Ethical Committe, and relevant faculties, to conduct to study. Results: The majority of the students (85.1%) stated that the most appropriate fertility age was between 25-29 years, and 51.8% stated that there was a significant decrease in the ability to become pregnant at age 40 and above. 65.6% of the students knew oocyte freezing, 31.2% social oocyte freezing. 31.2% stated that the ideal age range for freezing oocytes was 30-34 years of age for social reasons. Students have the highest number of social oocyte freeze; Women who are ≥35 years old (74.9%), women who postpone childbirth because of career and job opportunities (70.7%), women without appropriate spouse / partner (69.9%), and women who get the most cancer / chemotherapy treatment for medical reasons (74.5%). 23.3% of the students thought that they could consider oocyte freezing for social reasons and 13% of them could donate their eggs. Conclusion: It was determined that the knowledge level of nursing/midwifery students about the social egg freezing was low and the attitudes toward social egg freezing was negative.

Live birth and perinatal outcomes using cryopreserved oocytes: an analysis of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority database from 2000 to 2016 using three clinical models

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
M Mascarenhas ◽  
H Mehlawat ◽  
R Kirubakaran ◽  
H Bhandari ◽  
M Choudhary
Keyword(s):  
Birth Weight ◽  
Fertility Preservation ◽  
Perinatal Outcomes ◽  
Donor Oocyte ◽  
Human Fertilisation ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Clinical Models ◽  
Donor Oocytes ◽  
Egg Freezing ◽  
Social Egg Freezing

Abstract STUDY QUESTION Are live birth (LB) and perinatal outcomes affected by the use of frozen own versus frozen donor oocytes? SUMMARY ANSWER Treatment cycles using frozen own oocytes have a lower LB rate but a lower risk of low birth weight (LBW) as compared with frozen donor oocytes. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY A rising trend of oocyte cryopreservation has been noted internationally in the creation of donor oocyte banks and in freezing own oocytes for later use in settings of fertility preservation and social egg freezing. Published literature on birth outcomes with frozen oocytes has primarily utilised data from donor oocyte banks due to the relative paucity of outcome data from cycles using frozen own oocytes. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION This was a retrospective cohort study utilising the anonymised database of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, which is the statutory regulator of fertility treatment in the UK. We analysed 988 015 IVF cycles from the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) register from 2000 to 2016. Perinatal outcomes were assessed from singleton births only. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS Three clinical models were used to assess LB and perinatal outcomes: Model 1 compared frozen own oocytes (n = 632) with frozen donor oocytes (n = 922); Model 2 compared frozen donor oocytes (n = 922) with fresh donor oocytes (n = 24 706); Model 3 compared first cycle of fresh embryo transfer from frozen donor oocytes (n = 917) with first cycle of frozen embryo transfer created with own oocytes and no prior fresh transfer (n = 326). Preterm birth (PTB) was defined as LB before 37 weeks and LBW as birth weight <2500 g. Adjustment was performed for confounding variables such as maternal age, number of embryos transferred and decade of treatment MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE The LB rate (18.0% versus 30.7%; adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 0.61, 95% CI 0.43–0.85) and the incidence of LBW (5.3% versus 14.0%; aOR 0.29, 95% CI 0.13–0.90) was significantly lower with frozen own oocytes as compared with frozen donor oocytes with no significant difference in PTB (9.5% versus 15.7%; aOR 0.56, 95% CI 0.26–1.21). A lower LB rate was noted in frozen donor oocyte cycles (30.7% versus 34.7%; aOR 0.69, 95% CI 0.59–0.80) when compared with fresh donor oocyte cycles. First cycle frozen donor oocytes did not show any significant difference in LB rate (30.1% versus 19.3%; aOR 1.26, 95% CI 0.86–1.83) or PTB, but a higher incidence of LBW (17.7% versus 5.4%; aOR 3.77, 95% CI 1.51–9.43) as compared with first cycle frozen embryos using own oocytes. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION The indication for oocyte freezing, method of freezing used (whether slow-freezing or vitrification) and age at which eggs where frozen were unavailable. We report a subgroup analysis of women using their own frozen oocytes prior to 37 years. Cumulative LB rate could not be assessed due to the anonymous nature of the dataset. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS Women planning to freeze their own eggs for fertility preservation or social egg freezing need to be counselled that the results from frozen donor egg banks may not completely apply to them. However, they can be reassured that oocyte cryopreservation does not appear to have a deleterious effect on perinatal outcomes. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S) No specific funding was sought for the study. The authors have no relevant conflicts of interest. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER N/A

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document