YEŞİM AKSOY DERYA, TUBA UÇAR, SERMİN TİMUR TAŞHAN

The perspective of health professionals on the factor of 3rd persons in assisted reproductive techniques

This study was planned with the aim of determining the perspective of health professionals on the factor of 3rd persons in assisted reproductive therapy techniques. The study, which is cross-sectional and descriptive, was conducted at a university hospital in the province of Malatya between the dates April and June 2016. After a power analysis, the sample size was determined as 405 health professionals. In the statistical analysis of the data, the study used means, standard deviations and percentage distributions. Among the participants with the mean age of 2.77371, 62.7% were women and 83.5% were nurses. 27.2% stated that legal permission should be provided in assisted reproduction for oocyte donation with a 3rd person, surrogacy and sperm banks. On the other hand, 50.4% of the participants stated that they may recommend their patients other countries for operations that concern 3rd persons. It was found that the reason participants did not find these techniques appropriate was morals/ethics for 69.6% and religious reasons for 77.3%. 39.7% of the participants stated that, in a case where the only choice left for having a child is assisted reproductive methods that require a 3rd person, they would accept infertility and do nothing. The ratio of people who stated they would accept treatment was 19%. Among the participants who said they would accept treatment, 83.1% would absolutely choose someone they do not know. Additionally, 52.3% stated that they would not want themselves or their spouses become donors. Consequently, only 27.2% of health professionals stated that assisted reproductive techniques with 3rd persons should be legal. On the other hand, 50.4% stated they may forward their patients to other countries for these methods. It was seen that health professionals experienced a dilemma regarding this subject especially on grounds of morals/ethics and religious concerns

PDF

___

1. Bredenoord AL, Lock MTWT, Broekmans FJM. Ethics of intergenerational (father-to-son) sperm donation. Hum Reprod. 2012;27(5):1286-91.

2. Imrie S, Jadva V. The long-term experiences of surrogates: relationships and contact with surrogacy families in genetic and gestational surrogacy arrangements. Reprod Biomed Online. 2014;29(4):424–35.

3. Ergüneş S. Yapay Döllenme. Sağlık Hukuku Makaleleri II. İstanbul Barosu Yayınları, Istanbul, 2012;167-78.

4. Klitzman R. Buying and selling human eggs: infertility providers’ ethical and other concerns regarding egg donor agencies. BMC Med Ethics. 2016;17(1):71-81.

5. Boutelle AL. Donor Motivations, Associated risks and ethical considerations of oocyte donation. Nurs Womens Health. 2014;18(2):113-21.

6. Larsen EC, Petersen K, Andersen AN, Ziebe S. Egg-donation in Denmark. Ugeskr Laeger. 2009;171(39):2822-5.

7. SerreJL, Leutenegger AL, Bernheim A, Fellous M, Rouen A, Siffroi JP. Does anonymous sperm donation increase the risk for unions between relatives and the incidence of autosomal recessive diseases due to consanguinity? Hum Reprod. 2014;29(3):394-9.

8. Kılıç S, Uçar M, Türker T, Koçak N, Aydın G, Günay A, Gençtürk D.GATA Hemşirelik Yüksek Okulu öğrencilerinde taşıyıcı anneliğe yönelik tutumun belirlenmesi. Gülhane Tıp Dergisi. 2009;51:216-9.

9. Garrido N, Zuzuarregui JL, Simon C, Remohi J, Pellicer A. Sperm and oocyte donor selection and management: experience of a 10 year follow-up of more than 2100 candidates. Hum Reprod. 2002;17(2):3142-8.

10. Üremeye Yardımcı Tedavi Uygulamaları ve Üremeye Yardımcı Tedavi Merkezleri Hakkında Yönetmelik. Resmi Gazete Tarihi: 30.09.2014, Sayı: 29135.

11. Ürem M. Kadın Vücudu ve Etik Sorunlar. Sağlık Hukuku Makaleleri II. İstanbul Barosu Yayınları, 2012, ss.79-102.

12. Sydsjö G, Lampıc C, Bladh M, Svanberg AS. Oocyte and sperm donors’ opinions on the acceptable number of offspring. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2014;93(7):634-9.

13. Büyüköztürk Ş. Sosyal Bilimler için Veri Analizi El Kitabı. Ankara, Pegem A Yayıncılık, 2007.

14. Inhorn MC. Makıng muslım babıes: ıvf and gamete donatıon ın sunnı versus shı’a Islam. Cult Med Psychiatry. 2006;30(4):427-50.

15. Shreffler KM, Johnson DR, Scheuble LK. Ethical problems with infertility treatments: Attitudes and explanations. Soc Sci J. 2010;47(4):731-46.

16. Li Y, Xu HL. Ethical thinking on sperm use in human assisted reproductive technology. Zhonghua Nan Ke Xue. 2010;16(4):377-80.

17. Rubin LR, Melo-Martin I, Rosenwaks Z, Cholst IN. Once you’re choosing, nobody’s perfect: is more information necessarily better in oocyte donor selection? Reprod Biomed Online. 2015;30(3):311-8.

18. Kenney NJ, McGowam ML. Looking back: egg donors' retrospective evaluations of their motivations, expectations, and experiences during their first donation cycle. Fertil Steril. 2010;93(2):455-66.

19. Beier K. Surrogate motherhood: a trust-based approach. J Med Philos. 2015;40(6):633-52.