What is a fertility doctor’s duty?

by | Dec 16, 2019 | UK Fertility News

The subject of this year's Progress Educational Trust annual conference, entitled 'Reality Check', was 'a realistic look at assisted reproduction'. The choice of focus was motivated by ongoing controversy surrounding so-called 'IVF add-ons'. These are defined by the HFEA as 'optional extras that you may be offered on top of your normal fertility treatment, often at an additional cost'.
Source: https://www.bionews.org.uk/page_146872

In addition, the general commercialisation of reproduction has become a frequent topic of conversation, not just among experts in the area, but also among patients who are often unsure of what or who to trust. At a time where public trust in experts is somewhat diminished, this conference set out to examine and analyse some of the reasons why and how this is happening.

Kicking off the day with the keynote lecture was Professor Soren Ziebe, who set out to ask the big question: what is a fertility doctor’s duty?

Professor Ziebe began with a disclaimer to highlight that he heads a publicly funded IVF clinic in a country where free treatments are available, and, thus, for the purposes of this lecture, he believed he had no conflicts of interest. This disclaimer was poignant considering he, perhaps predictably, was fairly critical of the IVF ‘industry’ and some of the ways the HFEA regulates.

In his talk, Professor Ziebe argued that the ‘do no harm’ principle (nonmaleficence) so central to the medical ethical code should include financial harm, administrative harm and regulatory harm, in addition to physical and mental harm. This is an interesting concept and certainly one that warrants some thought and action.

In order to rate the reliability of add-ons, the HFEA has developed a traffic light system: ‘red’ indicates there is no evidence to show that the procedure is effective and safe, ‘amber’ is used where there is a small or conflicting body of evidence, and ‘green’ where there is positive data from more than one high quality Randomised Control Trial (RCT). Currently, there are six amber ratings, six red ratings and zero green ratings. Professor Ziebe argued that, given that there are zero treatment add-ons that are proven to work, perhaps they should stop being offered outside a trial and as an expense to the patients until there is demonstrable evidence of success.

To illustrate this, Professor Ziebe showed the average cost of an IVF cycle which also included ICSI (which is currently not classed as an add-on, although aspects of this are controversial and were discussed in a later session,) versus IVF-related supplementary procedures (add-ons) and their prices.

Drawing on one of the supplementary procedures at random, Professor Ziebe showed that it is offered at nine out of twelve Danish private clinics, but at no public clinics. This adds to the mounting evidence suggesting that the provision of add-ons is financially-driven.

To limit patient confusion, Professor Ziebe suggested the HFEA traffic-light system is replaced by a binary one. To emphasise this suggestion, he outlined other areas where treatment lacking a proper evidence base would not be permitted; for example, it is not allowed to offer new medical drugs without evidence.

Patients choose add-ons out of fear of their ticking biological clocks, Professor Ziebe argued, choosing in their desperation to ignore the lack of evidence for their efficacy.

Professor Ziebe ended on a stirring note arguing that those, like him, working in assisted reproduction should have the highest professional standards. It is not possible to make decisions in the best interest of patients while at the same time trying to sell supplementary services. ‘Patients trust us to guide them and this trust is a privilege we must treasure’, he said.

The lecture provoked interesting and impassioned discussion. Audience questions ranged from whether there should be sanctions against doctors who charge patients for add-ons where there is no scientific benefit, to why there is not better public engagement on the topic, to questions about the privatisation of infertility treatment. Professor Ziebe emphasised that he sees colleagues making a lot of money. There is a huge financial incentive for the provision of add-ons and the silencing of public discussion.

Overall, Professor Ziebe gave a provocative keynote and hopefully made clear to any private IVF doctors in the audience the need for proper, stringent regulation of this under-regulated area. I’m sure many will agree that it is outrageous to prey on vulnerable fertility patients for monetary gain, but that is what appears to be happening.

Worth a read, is a recent piece in the New York Times, which discusses this very topic, but from the patient’s perspective. Notwithstanding that every patient is different and something that works for one individual may not work for another, one can see from this that there is much work to be done in educating the public about what works, and in helping them to make informed and evidence-based decisions about what treatment is right for them.

The Progress Educational Trust (PET) would like to thank the sponsors of its conference – the Anne McLaren Memorial Trust Fund, Edwards and Steptoe Research Trust Fund, CooperSurgical, the European Sperm Bank, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, the London Women’s Clinic, NGA Law and the Institute of Medical Ethics.

More articles

Surrogacy UK welcomes Law Commission Consultation Paper on Reforming UK’s Outdated Surrogacy Laws

On 6th June, at a conference entitled ‘Reforming Surrogacy Laws: Future Directions and Possibilities’, the Law Commission of England and Wales and the Scottish Law Commission will launch their public consultation on reforming the UK’s outdated surrogacy laws. Surrogacy UK has long campaigned for legal reform and was consulted by the Law Commission in the preparation of their proposals.

Domicile and Surrogacy: The 5 W’s

“Where is your home?” seems like a simple question. But in our multi-cultural society, that is not always so. For intended parents in a surrogacy arrangement, it is one of the most important questions to ask.

Surrogacy UK Code of Practice update

The HFEA (Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority) govern and regulate all fertility treatments that take place in licensed fertility centres throughout the UK. The code of practice has recently been updated and we are awaiting the official issue of the 9th edition so that we can implement this into our clinical practice.

NHS Funding and Surrogacy

There’s been much discussion in recent days about the story in the Daily Mail about a same sex male couple in the UK who have received public funding for IVF treatment to try to create embryos using their own gametes and donor eggs.

Fertility regulator calls for clinics to be more open about treatment add-ons

The HFEA, the UK fertility regulator, has called for a change in how patients are offered optional fertility treatment add-ons.

Surrogacy Survey 2018 Results

Surrogates do not support calls for commercial surrogacy in the UK. Over 70 per cent of surrogates in the UK believe they should only be allowed to claim expenses when they carry a child for another couple, the UK’s largest ever survey into surrogacy has found.

Surrogacy UK welcomes individuals who want to start families

Surrogacy UK welcomes individuals who want to start families as UK Parliament votes to end three decades of discrimination.

Research findings from a longitudinal study of surrogacy families in the UK

Around the year 2000, a group of researchers, headed by Professor Susan Golombok, began a study of families created using surrogacy. I have worked on the project from its beginnings, when children in the study were one year old infants. Since then, our team has revisited the families five times and last saw them when the children were aged 14.

Host or Straight Surrogacy – Choosing your path

If you’re reading this then you will have most likely either made the choice that surrogacy is the path to parenthood that you wish to take, or you are close to taking that first big step.