Fertility preservation in young cancer patients has come a long way in the last decade, as both patients and the medical community have galvanized to improve the information and reproductive technologies available surrounding oncofertility. In response to the increased likelihood of young men and women losing their fertility due to cancer and its treatment, the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) published fertility preservation guidelines for clinicians to follow when treating young cancer patients. In recent news, the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) announced that egg freezing would no longer be considered an “experimental” fertility preservation technique, making it easier for cancer patients to receive insurance coverage if they choose egg freezing as their method of fertility preservation. These developments stemmed from substantive evidence that fertility preservation among cancer patients facing fertility impairing treatment is an ethically sound practice, and in a new article entitled, “Lives in the Balance: Women With Cancer and the Right to Fertility Care,” by Clarisa Gracia, MD, and Jacqueline Jeruss, MD, the authors share a reproductive specialist’s view of oncofertility counseling that is important for the practicing oncologist to consider.
First, by discussing fertility preservation with their patients, oncology providers are allowing them to make informed decisions about their reproductive futures. To date, there is no evidence indicating that by discussing oncofertility with patients, it compels them to participate; rather, it demonstrates that they are receiving comprehensive cancer care, which includes survivorship care. In fact, according to the authors, “evidence indicates that patients with cancer who receive counseling about fertility preservation experience less long-term regret than those patients who do not receive counseling, even if the patients choose not to pursue fertility preservation.” Sharing this information with patients may also increase patient confidence in the medical community if they see that they are being treated as a whole person and not just a cancer diagnosis.
Next, an ethical concern raised surrounding oncofertility centers on the disposition of embryos and tissue, specifically as an increasing amount of biologic material is cryopreserved as a result of fertility preservation. Nonetheless, the authors argue that the burden on society will be minimal, since most cryopreserved material comes from healthy, infertile patients actively trying to conceive. They also claim that by striving for advances in fertility preservation options, fewer patients will choose to freeze embryos because they will have other options, reducing the potential ethical issues surrounding embryo ownership.
Finally, the authors address the argument that the allocation of funding and research dedicated to fertility preservation could be better utilized in other medical fields, since it affects such a small percentage of people. Gracia and Jeruss state, “although this may have been a legitimate concern in the past, the research accomplished under the auspices of fertility preservation thus far has furthered the understanding of reproductive physiology, leading to significant breakthroughs in the field of reproductive medicine.” It’s also important to note that these breakthroughs have a ripple affect and can lead to improved fertility options for healthy infertile patients, improved contraception methods, and the conservation efforts of endangered species. Read “Lives in the Balance: Women With Cancer and the Right to Fertility Care,” by Clarisa Gracia, MD, and Jacqueline Jeruss, MD, to learn more about reproductive medicine and the ethical concerns surrounding oncofertility.