Assisted reproductive technology in the USA: Is more regulation needed?

The regulation of assisted reproductive technologies is a contested area. Some jurisdictions, such as the UK and a number of Australian states, have comprehensive regulation of most aspects of assisted reproductive technologies; others, such as the USA, have taken a more piecemeal approach and rely on professional guidelines and the general regulation of medical practice to govern this area. It will be argued that such a laissez-faire approach is inadequate for regulating the complex area of assisted reproductive technologies. Two key examples, reducing multiple births and registers of donors and offspring, will be considered to illustrate the effects of the regulatory structure of assisted reproductive technologies in the USA on practice. It will be concluded that the regulatory structure in the USA fails to provide an adequate mechanism for ensuring the ethical and safe conduct of ART services, and that more comprehensive regulation is required.

[1]  N. Gleicher.  Eliminating multiple pregnancies: an appropriate target for government intervention? , 2011, Reproductive biomedicine online.

[2]  P. Patrizio,et al.  Insurance coverage and in vitro fertilization outcomes: a U.S. perspective. , 2011, Fertility and sterility.

[3]  S. Wolf.  Informing offspring of their conception by gamete donation. , 2004, Fertility and sterility.

[4]  C. Peterson,et al.  Reproductive endocrinology and infertility. , 2009, Clinical privilege white paper.

[5]  斉藤 英和.  4)Assisted Reproductive Technology( 3.ミートザエキスパートB.) , 1996 .

[6]  E. Sullivan,et al.  Assisted reproductive technology in Australia and New Zealand 2007 , 2009 .

[7]  D. Barad,et al.  The status of public reporting of clinical outcomes in assisted reproductive technology. , 2013, Fertility and sterility.

[8]  Neroli Sawyer.  Who's keeping count? The need for regulation is a relative matter. , 2009, Fertility and sterility.

[9]  E. Pergament,et al.  Current practices of commercial cryobanks in screening prospective donors for genetic disease and reproductive risk. , 1996, International journal of fertility and menopausal studies.

[10]  Naomi Cahn.  Necessary Subjects: The Need for a Mandatory National Donor Gamete Databank , 2015 .

[11]  E. Lesaffre,et al.  The history of Belgian assisted reproduction technology cycle registration and control: a case study in reducing the incidence of multiple pregnancy. , 2013, Human reproduction.

[12]  R. Falk,et al.  Genetic testing of sperm donors: survey of current practices. , 2010, Fertility and sterility.

[13]  W. Barfield,et al.  Assisted reproductive technology surveillance--United States, 2009. , 2012, Morbidity and mortality weekly report. Surveillance summaries.

[14]  Naomi R. Cahn.  Necessary Subjects: The Need for a Mandatory National Donor Gamete Registry , 2008 .

[15]  B. Hamilton,et al.  The effects of insurance mandates on choices and outcomes in infertility treatment markets. , 2012, Health economics.

[16]  Human Fertilisation,et al.  Embryo transfer and multiple births , 2009 .

[17]  H. Jones,et al.  Multiple pregnancies: a call for action. , 2001, Fertility and sterility.

[18]  E. Levens,et al.  Embryo transfer practices in the United States: a survey of clinics registered with the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology. , 2010, Fertility and sterility.

[19]  M. C. Inhorn,et al.  Introduction: travelling for conception and the global assisted reproduction market. , 2011, Reproductive biomedicine online.

[20]  S. Allan.  Donor conception, secrecy and the search for information. , 2012, Journal of law and medicine.

[21]  W. Barfield,et al.  Assisted Reproductive Technology Surveillance - 
United States, 2013. , 2015, Morbidity and mortality weekly report. Surveillance summaries.

[22]  A. Kalfoglou.  Looking back, looking forward: the legacy of the National Advisory Board on Ethics in Reproduction (NABER). , 2000, Women's health issues : official publication of the Jacobs Institute of Women's Health.

[23]  D. Barad,et al.  Update on the comparison of assisted reproduction outcomes between Europe and the USA: the 2002 data. , 2007, Fertility and sterility.

[24]  A. Decherney,et al.  Assisted reproductive technology in the United States. , 2004, The New England journal of medicine.

[25]  W. Barfield,et al.  Assisted reproductive technology surveillance--United States, 2011. , 2014, Morbidity and mortality weekly report. Surveillance summaries.

[26]  Brooks A. Keel,et al.  Reproductive Laboratory Regulations, Certifications and Reporting Systems , 2010 .

[27]  Umed Ajani,et al.  Summary of notifiable diseases--United States, 2012. , 2014, MMWR. Morbidity and mortality weekly report.

[28]  P. Callum,et al.  Genetic evaluation procedures at sperm banks in the United States. , 2013, Fertility and Sterility.

[29]  W. Ledger,et al.  What can we learn from a decade of promoting safe embryo transfer practices? A comparative analysis of policies and outcomes in the UK and Australia, 2001-2010. , 2013, Human reproduction.

[30]  D. Adamson.  Regulation of assisted reproductive technologies in the United States. , 2002, Family law quarterly.

[31]  I. Cohen.  Rethinking Sperm-Donor Anonymity: Of Changed Selves, Non-Identity, and One-Night Stands , 2011 .

[32]  D. Spar.  Reproductive tourism and the regulatory map. , 2005, The New England journal of medicine.