As infertility rates rise, a debate is emerging over the best way to help couples struggling to conceive. A new report from the ethics & Public Policy Center in Washington DC highlights the differences between conventional reproductive healthcare, which often relies on assisted reproductive technology (ART) like in vitro fertilization (IVF), and restorative reproductive medicine (RRM), which seeks to identify and treat the underlying causes of infertility.
Restorative Reproductive Medicine (RRM) Gains Traction
RRM takes a comprehensive approach, examining the whole body and addressing conditions that may contribute to reproductive dysfunction. This contrasts with IVF, which circumvents infertility without necessarily addressing the root causes. RRM utilises fertility awareness-based methods (FABMs) to identify underlying issues and protocols to treat them.
Concerns About Conventional Approaches
The report raises concerns about the increasing dominance of private equity firms in the fertility industry, potentially prioritising profits over patient care.
It also highlights the lack of regulation and oversight in the IVF industry, leaving parents and embryos vulnerable.
Ethical and Practical Considerations
The report also explores the ethical and practical considerations of egg and sperm donation, pre-implantation genetic testing (PGT), in vitro gametogenesis (IVG) and embryo adoption. It emphasises the need for informed consent, protection of vulnerable individuals and consideration of the long-term effects on children and families.
Call for Action
The report urges policymakers to support research into RRM, address the root causes of infertility to ensure ethical and compassionate care for couples struggling to conceive. It also calls for greater awareness of alternative treatment options and the potential for nutrition and lifestyle changes to improve fertility.
You can read the full report here.
