1.Irish public opinion on assisted human reproduction services: Contemporary assessments from a national sample.
David J WALSH ; E Scott SILLS ; Gary S COLLINS ; Christine A HAWRYLYSHYN ; Piotr SOKOL ; Anthony P H WALSH
Clinical and Experimental Reproductive Medicine 2013;40(4):169-173
OBJECTIVE: To measure Irish opinion on a range of assisted human reproduction (AHR) treatments. METHODS: A nationally representative sample of Irish adults (n=1,003) were anonymously sampled by telephone survey. RESULTS: Most participants (77%) agreed that any fertility services offered internationally should also be available in Ireland, although only a small minority of the general Irish population had personal familiarity with AHR or infertility. This sample finds substantial agreement (63%) that the Government of Ireland should introduce legislation covering AHR. The range of support for gamete donation in Ireland ranged from 53% to 83%, depending on how donor privacy and disclosure policies are presented. For example, donation where the donor agrees to be contacted by the child born following donation, and anonymous donation where donor privacy is completely protected by law were supported by 68% and 66%, respectively. The least popular (53%) donor gamete treatment type appeared to be donation where the donor consents to be involved in the future life of any child born as a result of donor fertility treatment. Respondents in social class ABC1 (58%), age 18 to 24 (62%), age 25 to 34 (60%), or without children (61%) were more likely to favour this donor treatment policy in our sample. CONCLUSION: This is the first nationwide assessment of Irish public opinion on the advanced reproductive technologies since 2005. Access to a wide range of AHR treatment was supported by all subgroups studied. Public opinion concerning specific types of AHR treatment varied, yet general support for the need for national AHR legislation was reported by 63% of this national sample. Contemporary views on AHR remain largely consistent with the Commission for Assisted Human Reproduction recommendations from 2005, although further research is needed to clarify exactly how popular opinion on these issues has changed. It appears that legislation allowing for the full range of donation options (and not mandating disclosure of donor identity at a stipulated age) would better align with current Irish public opinion.
Adult
;
Anonyms and Pseudonyms
;
Child
;
Surveys and Questionnaires
;
Disclosure
;
Fertility
;
Fertilization in Vitro
;
Humans*
;
Infertility
;
Ireland
;
Jurisprudence
;
Privacy
;
Public Opinion*
;
Public Policy
;
Recognition (Psychology)
;
Reproduction*
;
Reproductive Techniques
;
Social Class
;
Telephone
;
Tissue Donors
2.Array comparative genomic hybridization screening in IVF significantly reduces number of embryos available for cryopreservation.
Jiaen LIU ; E Scott SILLS ; Zhihong YANG ; Shala A SALEM ; Tayyab RAHIL ; Gary S COLLINS ; Xiaohong LIU ; Rifaat D SALEM
Clinical and Experimental Reproductive Medicine 2012;39(2):52-57
OBJECTIVE: During IVF, non-transferred embryos are usually selected for cryopreservation on the basis of morphological criteria. This investigation evaluated an application for array comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH) in assessment of surplus embryos prior to cryopreservation. METHODS: First-time IVF patients undergoing elective single embryo transfer and having at least one extra non-transferred embryo suitable for cryopreservation were offered enrollment in the study. Patients were randomized into two groups: Patients in group A (n=55) had embryos assessed first by morphology and then by aCGH, performed on cells obtained from trophectoderm biopsy on post-fertilization day 5. Only euploid embryos were designated for cryopreservation. Patients in group B (n=48) had embryos assessed by morphology alone, with only good morphology embryos considered suitable for cryopreservation. RESULTS: Among biopsied embryos in group A (n=425), euploidy was confirmed in 226 (53.1%). After fresh single embryo transfer, 64 (28.3%) surplus euploid embryos were cryopreserved for 51 patients (92.7%). In group B, 389 good morphology blastocysts were identified and a single top quality blastocyst was selected for fresh transfer. All group B patients (48/48) had at least one blastocyst remaining for cryopreservation. A total of 157 (40.4%) blastocysts were frozen in this group, a significantly larger proportion than was cryopreserved in group A (p=0.017, by chi-squared analysis). CONCLUSION: While aCGH and subsequent frozen embryo transfer are currently used to screen embryos, this is the first investigation to quantify the impact of aCGH specifically on embryo cryopreservation. Incorporation of aCGH screening significantly reduced the total number of cryopreserved blastocysts compared to when suitability for freezing was determined by morphology only. IVF patients should be counseled that the benefits of aCGH screening will likely come at the cost of sharply limiting the number of surplus embryos available for cryopreservation.
Biopsy
;
Blastocyst
;
Comparative Genomic Hybridization
;
Cryopreservation
;
Embryo Transfer
;
Embryonic Structures
;
Fertilization in Vitro
;
Freezing
;
Humans
;
Mass Screening
;
Preimplantation Diagnosis
;
Single Embryo Transfer