For the sake of consistency and fairness: Why insurance companies should cover fertility preservation treatment for iatrogenic infertility

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapter

18 Scopus citations

Abstract

There is much debate not only about the morality of assisted reproductive technologies (ART) but also about how they should be classified. Should ART be understood as medical treatment for a disease (infertility) or should they be relegated to boutique medicine where they are seen as elective? How we answer this question affects our thoughts about whether ART should be covered by insurance companies. Those who claim infertility is a medical disease usually advocate that ART be covered by insurance. Conversely, those who believe ART are elective procedures generally oppose insurance coverage, insisting that insurance coverage should be limited to medically necessary treatments. While the debate cannot simply be reduced to whether "real" diseases should be covered by insurance and all other conditions should not, in the minds of many, a strong connection exists between what is considered a disease and what insurance should cover.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Title of host publicationOncofertility
Subtitle of host publicationEthical, Legal, Social, and Medical Perspectives
Editorsteresa Woodruff, Sarah Rodriguez, Lisa Campo-Engelstein, Laurie Zoloth
Pages381-388
Number of pages8
DOIs
StatePublished - 2010
Externally publishedYes

Publication series

NameCancer Treatment and Research
Volume156
ISSN (Print)0927-3042

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Oncology
  • Cancer Research

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'For the sake of consistency and fairness: Why insurance companies should cover fertility preservation treatment for iatrogenic infertility'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this