Top

Reproductive Health

Published in:

Open Access 01-12-2022 | In Vitro Fertilisation | Review

A comparison of assisted human reproduction (AHR) regulation in Ireland with other developed countries

Authors: Olivia McDermott, Lauraine Ronan, Mary Butler

Published in: Reproductive Health | Issue 1/2022

Abstract

Background

Assisted human reproduction (AHR) treatment is not regulated in Ireland although it has been practiced since 1987. Thus, Ireland is one of the only European countries without any form of AHR specific regulation. This literature review research aimed to provide a comprehensive and comparative overview of AHR regulation and any associated literature to compare Ireland and other developed countries.

Methods

Systematic searches were conducted in several databases (Google Scholar, Web of Science, MEDLINE, SCOPUS and official government websites) utilising search strings in relation to AHR legislation for each country under review. A final review of 155 research articles were eligible after screening related to legislation in each country for inclusion. The findings were synthesised and summarised by legislation in each country.

Results

Different countries offer different levels of ART and IVF provision and services in terms of the type of services allowed, financial support, age, sex and eligibility of recipients. The UK’s oversight legislation combined with the Netherlands financial legislation section provides as being most effective hybrid model of best practice for adoption in Ireland.

Conclusions

This research concluded that there is no AHR legislation in any country that can be described as all-encompassing in terms of the services allowed, financial support and age of recipients. It was concluded that significant changes need to be made to the Irish draft legislation which is in limbo with the government for the last 3 years in order to meet Irish patient needs.

Health Services Executive HSE. Available online: https://www2.hse.ie/conditions/child-health/fertility-problems-and-treatments/types-of-fertility-problems.html. Accessed 11 June 2021.

Calhaz-Jorge C, De Geyter CH, Kupk MS, Wyns C, Mocanu E, Motrenko T, Scaravelli G, Smeenk J, Vidakovic S, Goossens V. Survey on ART and IUI: legislation, regulation, funding and registries in European countries: The European IVF-Monitoring Consortium (EIM) for the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE). Hum Reprod Open. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1093/hropen/hoz044.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Book (eISB), electronic I.S. Electronic Irish Statute Book (EISB). Available online: http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/cons/en/html. Accessed 12 June 2021.

Mascarenhas MN, Flaxman SR, Boerma T, Vanderpoel S, Stevens GA. National, regional, and global trends in infertility prevalence since 1990: a systematic analysis of 277 health surveys. PLoS Med. 2012;9:e1001356. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001356.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Galhardo A, Cunha M, Pinto-Gouveia J. Psychological aspects in couples with infertility. Sexologies. 2011;20:224–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sexol.2011.08.005.CrossRef

The social construction of infertility among Iranian infertile women: a qualitative study. Available online: https://www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.libgate.library.nuigalway.ie/pmc/articles/PMC6670265/. Accessed 26 June 2021.

Renzi A, Di Trani M, Solano L, Minutolo E, Tambelli R. Success of assisted reproductive technology treatment and couple relationship: a pilot study on the role of romantic attachment. Health Psychol Open. 2020;7:2055102920933073. https://doi.org/10.1177/2055102920933073.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Pasch LA, Sullivan KT. Stress and coping in couples facing infertility. Curr Opin Psychol. 2017;13:131–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2016.07.004.CrossRefPubMed

Chelo E. Assisted reproduction: historical background. Glob Bioeth. 2001;14:69–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/11287462.2001.10800798.CrossRef

10.

Schmidt L, Holstein BE, Christensen U, Boivin J. Scopus Preview—Scopus—Document Details—Communication and Coping as Predictors of Fertility Problem Stress: Cohort Study of 816 Participants Who Did Not Achieve a Delivery after 12 Months of Fertility Treatment. Available online: https://www.scopus.com/record/display.uri?eid=2-s2.0-27944478219&origin=inward&txGid=1be12308ec20300a2ae129ea5a0095d9. Accessed 26 June 2021).

11.

Yovich LJ. Founding pioneers of IVF update: innovative researchers generating livebirths by 1982. Reprod Biol. 2020;20:111–3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.repbio.2019.12.008.CrossRef

12.

Boggio A. Italy enacts new law on medically assisted reproduction. Hum Reprod. 2005;20:1153–7. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/deh871.CrossRefPubMed

13.

Wymelenberg S. Medicine (US), I. of new technologies: the ethical and social issues. National Academies Press (US), 1990.

14.

OHCHR | International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

15.

Allison J. Enduring politics: the culture of obstacles in legislating for assisted reproduction technologies in Ireland. Reprod Biomed Soc Online. 2016;3:134–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbms.2016.09.004.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

16.

HPRA Blood and Tissues Establishments List. Available online: http://www.hpra.ie/homepage/blood-tissues-organs/blood-and-tissues-establishments-list. Accessed 12 June 2021.

17.

Madden D. Assisted reproduction in the Republic of Ireland—a legal quagmire. In Ethics, law and society. Routledge, 2006. ISBN 978-1-315-09433-5.

18.

IMC Medical Council—Guide to Professional Conduct & Ethics 8th Edition. https://www.medicalcouncil.ie/news-and-publications/reports/guide-to-professional-conduct-ethics-8th-edition.html. Accessed 26 June 2021.

19.

Walsh DJ, Ma ML, Sills ES. The evolution of health policy guidelines for assisted reproduction in the Republic of Ireland, 2004–2009 | Health Research Policy and Systems | Full Text. Health Res Policy Syst. 2011, 9. https://doi-org.libgate.library.nuigalway.ie/10.1186/1478-4505-9-28.

20.

Hayes M-T. IVF and the status of the embryo in Ireland | Lexology. Available online: https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=a508ee63-72dd-48bf-bc1a-2c1d6b835910. Accessed 27 June 2021.

21.

Kelly J, Hughes CM, Harrison RF. The hidden costs of IVF. Ir Med J. 2006;99:142–3.PubMed

22.

Kennedy R. the use of adjuvants in assisted reproduction treatment. Glob Reprod Health. 2019;4:e33. https://doi.org/10.1097/GRH.0000000000000033.CrossRef

23.

Oireachtas, H. of the Publications by the Houses of the Oireachtas—Houses of the Oireachtas. Available online: https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/publications?q=human+assisted+reproduction&date=&term=%2Fie%2Foireachtas%2Fhouse%2Fdail%2F32&fromDate=28%2F06%2F2021&toDate=28%2F06%2F2021&committee%5B0%5D=%2Fen%2Fcommittees%2F32%2Fcommittee-on-health%2F&topic%5B0%5D=reports&topic%5B1%5D=reports%2Creports. Accessed 28 June 2021.

24.

Fertility IQ FertilityIQ Workplace Index. Available online: https://www.fertilityiq.com/topics/fertilityiq-data-and-notes/fertilityiq-workplace-index. Accessed 24 July 2021.

25.

Welcome to the HFEA | Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. Available online: https://www.hfea.gov.uk/. Accessed 14 June 2021.

26.

Snyder H. Literature review as a research methodology: an overview and guidelines—ScienceDirect. J Bus Res.

27.

Pandey N, Nayal P, Rathore AS. Digital marketing for B2B organizations: structured literature review and future research directions. J Bus Ind Mark. 2020;35:1191–204. https://doi.org/10.1108/JBIM-06-2019-0283.CrossRef

28.

Wong G, Greenhalgh T, Westhorp G, Buckingham J, Pawson R. RAMESES publication standards: meta-narrative reviews. J Adv Nurs. 2013;69:987–1004. https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.12092.CrossRefPubMed

29.

Health Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Act 2006. Available online: https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2006A00172/Html/Text, http://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2006A00172. Accessed 27 June 2021.

30.

Ethical Guidelines on the Use of Assisted Reproductive Technology | NHMRC. Available online: https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/art. Accessed 27 June 2021.

31.

Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Act 2004 No 92 (as at 01 December 2020), Public Act—New Zealand Legislation. Available online: https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2004/0092/latest/whole.html. Accessed 14 June 2021.

32.

Johnson L. Regulation of assisted reproductive treatment (ART) in Australia and current ethical issues. Indian J Med Res. 2014;140:S9–12.PubMedPubMedCentral

33.

Pennings G. Decision-making authority of patients and fertility specialists in Belgian law. Reprod Biomed Online. 2007;15:19–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1472-6483(10)60686-4.CrossRefPubMed

34.

Pennings G. Belgian law on medically assisted reproduction and the disposition of supernumerary embryos and gametes. Eur J Health Law. 2007;14:251–60. https://doi.org/10.1163/092902707x232971.CrossRefPubMed

35.

Van Landuyt L, Verheyen G, Tournaye H, Camus M, Devroey P, Van Steirteghem A. New Belgian embryo transfer policy leads to sharp decrease in multiple pregnancy rate. Reprod Biomed Online. 2006;13:765–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1472-6483(10)61022-X.CrossRefPubMed

36.

Canada, H. Assisted Human Reproduction. Available online: https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/drugs-health-products/biologics-radiopharmaceuticals-genetic-therapies/legislation-guidelines/assisted-human-reproduction.html. Accessed 27 June 2021.

37.

Canada: The Assisted Human Reproduction Act | Center for Genetics and Society. Available online: https://www.geneticsandsociety.org/internal-content/canada-assisted-human-reproduction-act. Accessed 27 June 2021.

38.

Canada Gazette, Part 2, Volume 153, Number 13: Index. Available online: https://gazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p2/2019/2019-06-26/html/index-eng.html. Accessed 27 June 2021.

39.

Branch LS. Consolidated Federal Laws of Canada, Assisted Human Reproduction Act. Available online: https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/a-13.4/. Accessed 14 June 2021.

40.

About Us—Agence de La Biomédecine.

41.

Tsarapatsanis D. Embryonic human life and dignity: the French connection. Laws. 2015;4:755–70. https://doi.org/10.3390/laws4040755.CrossRef

42.

Isailovic I. Same sex but not the same: same-sex marriage in the United States and France and the universalist narrative. Am J Comp Law. 2018;66:267–315. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcl/avy027.CrossRef

43.

Kinght N. France’s new IVF law to cover same-sex couples, single women. Available online: https://www.volusonclub.net/empowered-womens-health/frances-new-ivf-law-will-extend-coverage-to-same-sex-couples-and-single-women/. Accessed 27 June 2021.

44.

Augst C. regulating dangerous futures: the German Embryo Protection Act of 1990—Legislation in Risk Society. 2000, 9, 205–226.

45.

Jasanoff S, Metzler I. Borderlands of life: IVF embryos and the law in the United States, United Kingdom, and Germany. Sci Technol Hum Values. 2020;45:1001–37. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243917753990.CrossRef

46.

To What Extent Can the Law Control Human Cloning?—Peter G Wood, 1999. Available online: https://journals-sagepub-com.libgate.library.nuigalway.ie/doi/abs/10.1177/002580249903900103. Accessed 27 June 2021.

47.

DCFG Gesetzliche Grundlagen_eng | Deutsche Gesellschaft Für Gewebetransplantation. Available online: https://gewebenetzwerk.de/en/gesetzliche-grundlagen/. Accessed 27 June 2021.

48.

Taupitz J, Beier HM, van den Daele W, Diedrich K, Dudenhausen JW, Felberbaum R, Gigerenzer G, Gille G, Habenicht F-U, Hinderberger P, et al. Medizinische und biologische Aspekte der Fertilität. In: Stock G, editor. Campus: Frankfurt a. M., 2012; p. 294–390. ISBN 978-3-593-39753-5.

49.

Trappe H. Assisted reproductive technologies in Germany: a review of the current situation. In Kreyenfeld M, Konietzka D, editors. Childlessness in Europe: contexts, causes, and consequences. Demographic Research Monographs; Springer International Publishing: Cham, 2017; pp. 269–288. ISBN 978–3–319–44667–7.

50.

Allison, J. Research Guides: German Law Research: Social Law (Sozialrecht). Available online: https://guides.library.harvard.edu/c.php?g=310823&p=2079291. Accessed 27 June 2021.

51.

Johansson M, Berg M. Women’s experiences of childlessness 2 years after the end of in vitro fertilization treatment. Scand J Caring Sci. 2005;19:58–63. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6712.2005.00319.x.CrossRefPubMed

52.

Fineschi V, Neri M, Turillazzi E. The New Italian Law on Assisted Reproduction Technology (Law 40/2004). J Med Ethics. 2005;31:536–9. https://doi.org/10.1136/jme.2004.010231.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

53.

Riezzo I, Neri M, Bello S, Pomara C, Turillazzi E. Italian law on medically assisted reproduction: do women’s autonomy and health matter? BMC Womens Health. 2016;16:44. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12905-016-0324-4.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

54.

Benagiano G, Filippi V, Sgargi S, Gianaroli L. Italian Constitutional court removes the prohibition on gamete donation in Italy. Reprod Biomed Online. 2014;29:662–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2014.08.013.CrossRefPubMed

55.

Pennings G. Legal harmonization and reproductive tourism in Europe. Hum Reprod. 2004;19:2689–94. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/deh486.CrossRefPubMed

56.

Ishihara O, Jwa SC, Kuwahara A, Ishikawa T, Kugu K, Sawa R, Banno K, Irahara M, Saito H. Assisted reproductive technology in Japan: a summary report for 2016 by the Ethics Committee of the Japan Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology. Reprod Med Biol. 2018;18:7–16. https://doi.org/10.1002/rmb2.12258.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

57.

Dore RP. Japanese rural fertility; some social and economic factors. Popul Stud. 1953;7:62–88. https://doi.org/10.2307/2172437.CrossRef

58.

Kato M, Sleeboom-Faulkner M. Meanings of the embryo in Japan: narratives of IVF experience and embryo ownership. Sociol Health Illn. 2011;33:434–47. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9566.2010.01282.x.CrossRefPubMed

59.

Japan Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology|Japan Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology. http://www.jsog.or.jp/modules/en/index.php?content_id=1. Accessed 27 June 2021.

60.

Kisu I, Banno K, Mihara M, Iida T, Yoshimura Y. Current status of surrogacy in Japan and uterine transplantation research. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2011;158:135–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2011.04.037.CrossRefPubMed

61.

Ishihara O, Jwa SC, Kuwahara A, Katagiri Y, Kuwabara Y, Hamatani T, Harada M, Osuga Y. Assisted reproductive technology in Japan: a summary report for 2018 by the Ethics Committee of the Japan Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology. Reprod Med Biol. 2020;20:3–12. https://doi.org/10.1002/rmb2.12358.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

62.

Yang I-CM. A journey of hope: an institutional perspective of Japanese outbound reproductive tourism. Curr Issues Tour. 2020;23:52–67. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2019.1577806.CrossRef

63.

Asazawa K, Jitsuzaki M, Mori A, Ichikawa T, Shinozaki K, Porter SE. Quality-of-life predictors for men undergoing infertility treatment in Japan. Jpn J Nurs Sci. 2019;16:329–41. https://doi.org/10.1111/jjns.12248.CrossRefPubMed

64.

Hibino Y, Allan S. Absence of laws regarding sperm and oocyte donation in Japan and the impacts on donors, parents, and the people born as a result. Reprod Med Biol. 2020;19:295–8. https://doi.org/10.1002/rmb2.12329.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

65.

Te Braake TAM. The Dutch 2002 Embryos Act and the Convention on human rights and biomedicine: some issues. Eur J Health Law. 2004;11:139.CrossRef

66.

Hofverberg E. Sweden: single women receive legal right to insemination assistance | Global Legal Monitor. Available online: www.loc.gov/law/foreign-news/article/sweden-single-women-receive-legal-right-to-insemination-assistance/. Accessed 27 June 2021.

67.

Payne JG, Korolczuk E. Reproducing politics: the politicisation of patients’ identities and assisted reproduction in Poland and Sweden. Sociol Health Illn. 2016;38:1074–91. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9566.12433.CrossRef

68.

Swedish National Council on Medical Ethics The Genetic Integrity Act (2006:351). Available online: https://smer.se/en/2006/05/11/the-genetic-integrity-act-2006351/. Accessed 27 June 2021.

69.

The Federal Council SR 810.11—Federal Act of 18 December 1998 on Medically Assisted Reproduction (Reproductive Medicine Act, RMA). Available online: https://www.fedlex.admin.ch/eli/cc/2000/554/en. Accessed 27 June 2021.

70.

Regulation of Stem Cell Research in Switzerland | Eurostemcell. Available online: https://www.eurostemcell.org/regulation-stem-cell-research-switzerland. Accessed 27 June 2021.

71.

Scully JL, Rehmann-Sutter C. Creating donors: the 2005 Swiss Law on Donation of ‘Spare’ Embryos to HESC Research. J Bioethical Inq. 2006;3:81–93. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-006-9006-5.CrossRef

72.

Van den Bergh M, Hohl MK, De Geyter C, Stalberg AM, Limoni C. Ten Years of Swiss National IVF Register FIVNAT-CH. Are We Making Progress? Reprod Biomed Online. 2005;11:632–640. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1472-6483(10)61173-x.

73.

Luterbacher C. Preimplantation diagnosis explained. https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/assisted-reproduction_preimplantation-diagnosis-explained/42073160. Accessed 27 June 2021.

74.

Deech R. Aims of the HFEA: past and future. Hum Fertil Camb Engl. 1999;2:118–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/1464727992000198481.CrossRef

75.

Jackson E. ‘Social’ egg freezing and the UK’s statutory storage time limits. J Med Ethics. 2016;42:738–41. https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2016-103704.CrossRefPubMed

76.

English V. Autonomy versus protection—who benefits from the regulation of IVF?*. Hum Reprod. 2006;21:3044–9. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/del308.CrossRefPubMed

77.

Stokes PJ, Hawkhead JA, Fawthrop RK, Picton HM, Sharma V, Leese HJ, Houghton FD. Metabolism of human embryos following cryopreservation: implications for the safety and selection of embryos for transfer in clinical IVF. Hum Reprod. 2007;22:829–35. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/del447.CrossRefPubMed

78.

IVF—Availability. Available online: https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/ivf/availability/. Accessed 28 June 2021.

79.

Policy Document | Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) | Reproductive Health | CDC. Available online: https://www.cdc.gov/art/nass/policy.html. Accessed 28 June 2021.

80.

Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) | Reproductive Health | CDC. Available online: https://www.cdc.gov/art/index.html. Accessed 28 June 2021.

81.

Research, C. for B.E. and What You Should Know—Reproductive Tissue Donation. FDA 2021.

82.

Adamson D. Regulation of assisted reproductive technologies in the United States. Fertil Steril. 2002;78:932–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0015-0282(02)04199-7.CrossRefPubMed

83.

Gunderson S, Jungheim ES, Kallen CB, Omurtag K. Public reporting of IVF outcomes influences medical decision-making and physician training. Fertil Res Pract. 2020;6:1. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40738-020-00070-7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

84.

Chichi DV. In vitro fertilization, fertility frustrations, and the lack of regulation note. Hofstra Law Rev. 2020;49:535–68.

85.

Thompson C. IVF global histories, USA: between rock and a marketplace. Reprod Biomed Soc Online. 2016;2:128–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbms.2016.09.003.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

86.

Benoit M, Chiles K, Hsieh M. The landscape of coverage for fertility preservation in male pediatric patients. Urol Pract. 2018;5:198–204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urpr.2017.03.007.CrossRefPubMed

87.

Weigel G, Ranji U, Long M. 2020 Coverage and use of fertility services in the U.S. KFF 2020.

88.

General Assembly of Pennsylvania Regular Session 2017–2018 Senate Bill 0148 P.N. 0123. Available online: https://www.legis.state.pa.us/CFDOCS/Legis/PN/Public/btCheck.cfm?txtType=HTM&sessYr=2017&sessInd=0&billBody=S&billTyp=B&billNbr=0148&pn=0123. Accessed 28 June 2021.

89.

CFR—Code of Federal Regulations Title 21. Available online: https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/CFRSearch.cfm?CFRPart=1271. Accessed 28 June 2021.

90.

Frith L, Blyth E. Assisted reproductive technology in the USA: is more regulation needed? Reprod Biomed Online. 2014;29:516–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2014.06.018.CrossRefPubMed

91.

ASRM Practice Committee Documents. Available online: https://www.asrm.org/news-and-publications/practice-committee-documents/. Accessed 28 June 2021..

92.

SART Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology. Available online: https://www.sart.org/. Accessed 28 June 2021.

93.

Anonymous tissues and cells. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/health/blood_tissues_organs/tissues_en. Accessed 12 June 2021.

94.

European Commission Tissues and Cells. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/health/blood_tissues_organs/tissues_en. Accessed 28 June 2021.

95.

ESHRE Task Force on Ethics and Law; Pennings G, de Wert G, Shenfield F, Cohen J, Tarlatzis B, Devroey P. ESHRE task force on ethics and law 14: equity of access to assisted reproductive technology. Hum Reprod. 2008;23:772–774. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/den037.

Title: A comparison of assisted human reproduction (AHR) regulation in Ireland with other developed countries
Authors: Olivia McDermott
Lauraine Ronan
Mary Butler
Publication date: 01-12-2022
Publisher: BioMed Central
Keywords: In Vitro Fertilisation
In Vitro Fertilisation
Assisted Reproduction
Published in: Reproductive Health / Issue 1/2022
Electronic ISSN: 1742-4755
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12978-022-01359-0

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

A comparison of assisted human reproduction (AHR) regulation in Ireland with other developed countries

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2022

Perceptions of cervical cancer care among Ethiopian women and their providers: a qualitative study

A comparative human rights analysis of laws and policies for adolescent contraception in Uganda and Kenya

Gestational weight gain during the second and third trimesters and adverse pregnancy outcomes, results from a prospective pregnancy cohort in urban Tanzania

Female genital mutilation and sexual behaviour by marital status among a nationally representative sample of Nigerian women

Women’s empowerment indicators and short- and long-acting contraceptive method use: evidence from DHS from 11 countries

The portrayal and perceptions of cesarean section in Mexican media Facebook pages: a mixed-methods study