ABSTRACT
Infertility is a medico-socio-cultural problem associated with gender-based suffering. Infertility treatment, including assisted reproductive technology (ART), is a human right. Culture and religion were among the stumbling blocks to early acceptance of ART, particularly in the Middle East and to a lesser extent in Europe. This was mostly due to the different cultural and religious perspectives on the moral status of the embryo in the two regions and the concerns about what could be done with human embryos in the laboratory. There is an increased demand for ART in both the Middle East and Europe, although the reasons for this increased demand are not always the same. Although Europe leads the world in ART, there is an unmet need for ART in many countries in the Middle East. Where ART is not supported by governments or insurance companies, a large percentage of couples paying for ART themselves will stop before they succeed in having a baby. There are similarities and differences in ART practices in the two regions. If a healthcare provider has a conscientious objection to a certain ART modality, he/she is ethically obliged to refer the patient to where they could have it done, provided it is legal.
Subject(s)
Culture , Infertility/therapy , Religion and Medicine , Reproductive Techniques, Assisted , Europe/epidemiology , Female , Humans , Infant, Newborn , Infertility/epidemiology , Infertility/psychology , Male , Middle East/epidemiology , Pregnancy , Religion , Reproductive Techniques, Assisted/legislation & jurisprudence , Reproductive Techniques, Assisted/psychology , Social StigmaABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: To compare the ICSI-ET outcomes in poor responders who underwent ovarian stimulation by the ultrashort GnRH antagonist protocol with or without adjuvant GH injection. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This randomized controlled study was conducted at Al-Azhar University from December-2018 to June-2019 upon 156 participants. All patients received the same preparations. After randomization, in the study group, women have received GH 4 IU/day subcutaneous injection from the second day of the cycle stopped one day before ovum pickup. While in the control group, women have received subcutaneous saline in the same dosing as in the study group. After intervention, all procedures were the same in both groups. The main outcome measure was the clinical pregnancy rate. Statistical analysis was based on the intention-to-treat population. RESULTS: Both groups were comparable with regard their baseline characteristics (p-values > 0.05). Ovulation characteristics were comparable (p-values > 0.05). The level of E2 is significantly (p-value = 0.003) higher in the GH group. The oocyte retrieved number was significantly (p-value < 0.001) higher in the GH group 4.94 ± 1.77 than in the control group 3.74 ± 1.82. The mean number of MII oocytes was significantly (p-value < 0.001) higher in the GH group 3.3 ± 1.36 than in the control group 2.29 ± 1.24. Fertilization characteristics, implantation rate, pregnancy rate were comparable (p-values > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Despite the fact that this study showed no significant increase in the clinical and chemical pregnancy rates by the addition of GH to the ultrashort antagonist protocol in poor responders, the number of retrieved oocytes was significantly higher in the GH group. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03759301.
Subject(s)
Fertilization in Vitro/methods , Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone/antagonists & inhibitors , Growth Hormone/administration & dosage , Hormone Antagonists/administration & dosage , Ovulation Induction/methods , Sperm Injections, Intracytoplasmic/methods , Adult , Drug Therapy, Combination , Embryo Implantation , Female , Humans , Injections, Subcutaneous , Oocyte Retrieval , Pregnancy , Pregnancy Rate , Treatment OutcomeABSTRACT
Infertility is a global medico-socio-cultural problem with gender-based suffering particularly in developing countries. Conventional methods of treatment for infertility do not usually raise ethical concerns. However, assisted reproductive technology (ART) has initiated considerable ethical debate, disagreement, and controversy. There are three ethical principles that provide an ethical basis for ART: the principle of liberty, principle of utility, and principle of justice. Medical ethics are based on the moral, religious, and philosophical ideas and principles of the society and are influenced by economics, policies, and law. This creates tension between the principles of justice and utility, which can result in disparity in the availability of and access to ART services between the rich and the poor. The moral status of the embryo is the key for all the ethical considerations and law regarding ART in different societies. This has resulted in cross-border ART. Conscientious objection of healthcare providers should not deprive couples from having access to a required ART service.