A legal-ethical analysis of reproductive endocrinologists' right to refuse ovulation induction to patients with diminished ovarian reserve

Fethiye Sinem Karipcin, Amjad Hossain, John Phelps

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Purpose: Review of the legal and ethical basis for reproductive endocrinologists to refuse ovulation induction to patients with diminished ovarian reserve. Methods: The Lexis-Nexis search engine was used to perform a legal review pertaining to refusal of treatment. Ethical opinions of medical organizations were also reviewed. Results: Federal antidiscrimination laws provide legal recourse for patients with diminished ovarian reserve who are denied ovulation induction. However, the same laws also permit refusal of care when there is bona fide medical justification to decline services. In addition, the codes of ethics for relevant professional organizations support physicians' decisions to refuse treatment when treatment is futile. Conclusion: Although it is ethically and legally permissible to deny ovulation induction to patients with diminished ovarian reserve when medically justified, refusal may invite retaliatory litigation. Counseling remains a cornerstone in directing these patients to options with more potential for success, such as donor eggs and adoption.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1105-1109
Number of pages5
JournalJournal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics
Volume28
Issue number11
DOIs
StatePublished - Nov 2011

Fingerprint

Ethical Analysis
Reproductive Rights
Ovulation Induction
Treatment Refusal
Ethical Review
Medical Futility
Codes of Ethics
Search Engine
Jurisprudence
Eggs
Counseling
Tissue Donors
Organizations
Physicians
Ovarian Reserve
Endocrinologists

Keywords

  • Diminished ovarian reserve
  • Discrimination
  • Ethics
  • Liability
  • Ovulation induction

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Obstetrics and Gynecology
  • Reproductive Medicine
  • Developmental Biology
  • Genetics
  • Genetics(clinical)

Cite this

A legal-ethical analysis of reproductive endocrinologists' right to refuse ovulation induction to patients with diminished ovarian reserve. / Karipcin, Fethiye Sinem; Hossain, Amjad; Phelps, John.

In: Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics, Vol. 28, No. 11, 11.2011, p. 1105-1109.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{869c91df3fae4242af725053b8d27484,
title = "A legal-ethical analysis of reproductive endocrinologists' right to refuse ovulation induction to patients with diminished ovarian reserve",
abstract = "Purpose: Review of the legal and ethical basis for reproductive endocrinologists to refuse ovulation induction to patients with diminished ovarian reserve. Methods: The Lexis-Nexis search engine was used to perform a legal review pertaining to refusal of treatment. Ethical opinions of medical organizations were also reviewed. Results: Federal antidiscrimination laws provide legal recourse for patients with diminished ovarian reserve who are denied ovulation induction. However, the same laws also permit refusal of care when there is bona fide medical justification to decline services. In addition, the codes of ethics for relevant professional organizations support physicians' decisions to refuse treatment when treatment is futile. Conclusion: Although it is ethically and legally permissible to deny ovulation induction to patients with diminished ovarian reserve when medically justified, refusal may invite retaliatory litigation. Counseling remains a cornerstone in directing these patients to options with more potential for success, such as donor eggs and adoption.",
keywords = "Diminished ovarian reserve, Discrimination, Ethics, Liability, Ovulation induction",
author = "Karipcin, {Fethiye Sinem} and Amjad Hossain and John Phelps",
year = "2011",
month = "11",
doi = "10.1007/s10815-011-9636-3",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "28",
pages = "1105--1109",
journal = "Journal of in Vitro Fertilization and Embryo Transfer",
issn = "0740-7769",
publisher = "Springer New York",
number = "11",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - A legal-ethical analysis of reproductive endocrinologists' right to refuse ovulation induction to patients with diminished ovarian reserve

AU - Karipcin, Fethiye Sinem

AU - Hossain, Amjad

AU - Phelps, John

PY - 2011/11

Y1 - 2011/11

N2 - Purpose: Review of the legal and ethical basis for reproductive endocrinologists to refuse ovulation induction to patients with diminished ovarian reserve. Methods: The Lexis-Nexis search engine was used to perform a legal review pertaining to refusal of treatment. Ethical opinions of medical organizations were also reviewed. Results: Federal antidiscrimination laws provide legal recourse for patients with diminished ovarian reserve who are denied ovulation induction. However, the same laws also permit refusal of care when there is bona fide medical justification to decline services. In addition, the codes of ethics for relevant professional organizations support physicians' decisions to refuse treatment when treatment is futile. Conclusion: Although it is ethically and legally permissible to deny ovulation induction to patients with diminished ovarian reserve when medically justified, refusal may invite retaliatory litigation. Counseling remains a cornerstone in directing these patients to options with more potential for success, such as donor eggs and adoption.

AB - Purpose: Review of the legal and ethical basis for reproductive endocrinologists to refuse ovulation induction to patients with diminished ovarian reserve. Methods: The Lexis-Nexis search engine was used to perform a legal review pertaining to refusal of treatment. Ethical opinions of medical organizations were also reviewed. Results: Federal antidiscrimination laws provide legal recourse for patients with diminished ovarian reserve who are denied ovulation induction. However, the same laws also permit refusal of care when there is bona fide medical justification to decline services. In addition, the codes of ethics for relevant professional organizations support physicians' decisions to refuse treatment when treatment is futile. Conclusion: Although it is ethically and legally permissible to deny ovulation induction to patients with diminished ovarian reserve when medically justified, refusal may invite retaliatory litigation. Counseling remains a cornerstone in directing these patients to options with more potential for success, such as donor eggs and adoption.

KW - Diminished ovarian reserve

KW - Discrimination

KW - Ethics

KW - Liability

KW - Ovulation induction

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84355166681&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84355166681&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s10815-011-9636-3

DO - 10.1007/s10815-011-9636-3

M3 - Article

C2 - 21912979

AN - SCOPUS:84355166681

VL - 28

SP - 1105

EP - 1109

JO - Journal of in Vitro Fertilization and Embryo Transfer

JF - Journal of in Vitro Fertilization and Embryo Transfer

SN - 0740-7769

IS - 11

ER -