Attitude of Medical Students toward Third-party Reproductive Techniques
Authors
-
Ali Talebi 1,2
1. School of Medicine, Shahroud University of Medical Sciences, Shahroud, Iran, 2. Sexual Health and Fertility Research Center, Shahroud University of Medical Sciences, Shahroud, Iran.
http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2067-6326
-
Kajal Khodamoradi 3,4
3. Department of Anatomy, School of Medicine, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran, 4. Department of Urology, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, FL.USA.
http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2951-4382
-
Zahra Rashidi 5
5. Fertility and Infertility Research Center, Health Technology Institute, Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences, Kermanshah, Iran.
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7598-8282
-
Zahra Khosravizadeh 6
6. Department of Infertility, Amiralmomenin Hospital, Arak University of Medical Sciences, Arak, Iran.
http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1068-1965
-
Nazanin Bayat 7
7. Department of Nursing, Faculty of Nursing and Midwifery, Tehran Medical Sciences, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran.
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9671-4555
-
Poorya Safarzadeh 8
8. Department of Medical Biotechnology, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran.
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9901-7851
-
Fardin Amidi 3*
3. Department of Anatomy, School of Medicine, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1165-5232
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.22100/ijhs.v7i3.861Keywords:
Attitude, Donor Conception, Infertility, Assisted Reproductive Technique, Medical StudentsAbstract
Background: Pregnancy with the help of a third party, including the use of sperm, oocyte, embryo, and uterus, can be considered as an option for some infertile couples. Due to the important role of health professionals in infertility treatments, their attitudes are of particular importance in the acceptance or rejection of fertility suggestions involving the help of a third party. This study aimed to determine the attitudes of medical students at medical universities in Tehran toward third-party reproduction.
Methods: This descriptive cross-sectional study was carried out at the Medical University of Tehran in 2018. Medical students (n=187) filled out the questionnaire, which consisted of two parts: the demographic characteristics of the research subjects and the questionnaire consisted of 76 questions about attitudes toward third-party reproduction. The content and face validity of the questionnaire were determined, and test-retest reliability of the questionnaire was established (0.89).
Results: According to gender, participants’ attitudes toward childbearing, the importance of genetic dependency between parents and children, law issues, anonymity in donation programs, parental affection, the importance of the recipient's and donor's characteristics, surrogacy, gamete, and embryo donation were all statistically non-significant (Pvalue>0.05). According to age and also to year of entering the university, participants’ attitude only toward childbearing was statistically significant (Pvalue= 0.018 and 0.01, respectively).
Conclusion: Since medical school students may set on the road to a specialty associated with infertility and its ramifications, it’s better to educate our soon-to-be health system professionals on all necessary aspects of infertility and third-party reproduction.
Key Words: Attitude; Donor Conception; Infertility; Medical Students; Assisted Reproductive Technique.
References
2. Datta, J., et al., Prevalence of infertility and help seeking among 15 000 women and men. Human Reproduction, 2016. 31(9): p. 2108-2118
3. Burkman, R.T., Berek & Novak’s gynecology. JAMA, 2012. 308(5): p. 516-517
4. Bruce-Hickman, K., L. Kirkland, and T. Ba-Obeid, The attitudes and knowledge of medical students towards surrogacy. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 2009. 29(3): p. 229-232
5. Lee, J. and C. Yap, Embryo donation: a review. Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica, 2003. 82(11): p. 991-996
6. Greenfeld, D.A., Effects and outcomes of third-party reproduction: parents. Fertility and sterility, 2015. 104(3): p. 520-524
7. American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Guidelines for sperm donation, in Fertility Sterility. 2004. p. 9-12.
8. Langer, G., E. Lemberg, and M. Sharf, Artificial insemination. A study of 156 successful cases. International journal of fertility, 1968. 14(3): p. 232-240
9. Purewal, S. and O.B. van den Akker, British women's attitudes towards oocyte donation: ethnic differences and altruism. Patient Educ Couns, 2006. 64(1-3): p. 43-9.10.1016/j.pec.2005.11.007
10. Kenney, N.J. and M. McGowan, Egg donation compensation: ethical and legal challenges. development, 2014. 9: p. 11-3
11. Jadva, V., et al., Surrogacy: the experiences of surrogate mothers. Human reproduction, 2003. 18(10): p. 2196-2204
12. Hathout, M., Surrogacy: an Islamic perspective. Journal of the Islamic Medical Association of North America, 1989. 21(3)
13. Brinsden, P.R., Gestational surrogacy. Human Reproduction Update, 2003. 9(5): p. 483-491
14. Kainz, K., The role of the psychologist in the evaluation and treatment of infertility. Women's Health Issues, 2001. 11(6): p. 481-485
15. Poote, A. and O.B. van den Akker, British women's attitudes to surrogacy. Human reproduction, 2008. 24(1): p. 139-145
16. Isikoglu, M., et al., Public opinion regarding oocyte donation in Turkey: first data from a secular population among the Islamic world. Human Reproduction, 2005. 21(1): p. 318-323
17. Kian, E.M., H. Riazi, and S. Bashirian, Attitudes of Iranian infertile couples toward surrogacy. Journal of human reproductive sciences, 2014. 7(1): p. 47
18. Svanberg, A.S., et al., Public opinion regarding oocyte donation in Sweden. Hum Reprod, 2003. 18(5): p. 1107-14.10.1093/humrep/deg222
19. Khalili, M.A., et al., IVF staff attitudes towards oocyte donation: a multi-centric study from Iran and Turkey. Reproductive biomedicine online, 2008. 17: p. 61-66
20. JAFARI, H., et al., COMPARISON OF KNOWLEDGE AND ATTITUDE TOWARDS REPRODUCTIVE DONATION PROCEDURES BETWEEN RECIPIENT AND NON-RECIPIENT INFERTILE COUPLES AT MASHHAD INFERTILITY CENTER. JOURNAL OF TORBAT HEYDARIYEH UNIVERSITY OF MEDICAL SCIENCES (JOURNAL OF HEALTH CHIMES), 2015. 3(2): p. -
21. Halman, L.J., A. Abbey, and F.M. Andrews, Attitudes about infertility interventions among fertile and infertile couples. American Journal of Public Health, 1992. 82(2): p. 191-194
22. Armour, K.L., An overview of surrogacy around the world: trends, questions and ethical issues. Nursing for women's health, 2012. 16(3): p. 231-236
23. McCormick, R.A., Surrogacy: a Catholic perspective. Creighton L. Rev., 1991. 25: p. 1617
24. Hirsh, A.V., Infertility in Jewish couples, biblical and rabbinic law. Human Fertility, 1998. 1(1): p. 14-19
25. Schenker, J.G., Infertility evaluation and treatment according to Jewish law. European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology, 1997. 71(2): p. 113-121
26. Husain, F.A., Reproductive issues from the Islamic perspective. Human fertility, 2000. 3(2): p. 124-128
27. Corson, S.L., et al., Gestational carrier pregnancy. Fertility and sterility, 1998. 69(4): p. 670-674
28. Dermout, S., et al., Non-commercial surrogacy: an account of patient management in the first Dutch Centre for IVF Surrogacy, from 1997 to 2004. Human Reproduction, 2009. 25(2): p. 443-449
29. Dar, S., et al., Assisted reproduction involving gestational surrogacy: an analysis of the medical, psychosocial and legal issues: experience from a large surrogacy program. Human reproduction, 2014. 30(2): p. 345-352
30. Söderström-Anttila, V., et al., Surrogacy: outcomes for surrogate mothers, children and the resulting families—a systematic review. Human reproduction update, 2016. 22(2): p. 260-276
31. Boivin, J., et al., Guidelines for counselling in infertility: outline version. Human reproduction, 2001. 16(6): p. 1301-1304
32. Fasouliotis, S.J. and J.G. Schenker, Social aspects in assisted reproduction. Human Reproduction Update, 1999. 5(1): p. 26-39
33. Schenker, J., Surrogate maternity. Revista chilena de obstetricia y ginecologia, 1989. 54(2): p. 103
34. Ali, L. and R. Kelley, The curious lives of surrogates. Newsweek, 2008. 151(14): p. 45-51
35. Nosheen, H. and H. Schellmann, The most wanted surrogates in the world. Glamour, 2010: p. 226-236
36. Bromham, D.R., Surrogacy: ethical, legal, and social aspects. Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics, 1995. 12(8): p. 509-516
37. Baykal, B., et al., Opinions of infertile Turkish women on gamete donation and gestational surrogacy. Fertility and Sterility, 2008. 89(4): p. 817-822.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2007.04.022
38. Association, B.M., Changing conceptions of motherhood: the practice of surrogacy in Britain. 1996.
39. Rodino, I.S., P.J. Burton, and K.A. Sanders, Donor information considered important to donors, recipients and offspring: an Australian perspective. Reproductive BioMedicine Online, 2011. 22(3): p. 303-311
40. Murray, C. and S. Golombok, To tell or not to tell: The decision-making process of egg-donation parents. Human Fertility, 2003. 6(2): p. 89-95.10.1080/1464770312331369123
41. Hahn, S.J. and M. Craft‐Rosenberg, The disclosure decisions of parents who conceive children using donor eggs. Journal of Obstetric, Gynecologic, & Neonatal Nursing, 2002. 31(3): p. 283-293
42. Hershberger, P., S.C. Klock, and R.B. Barnes, Disclosure decisions among pregnant women who received donor oocytes: a phenomenological study. Fertility and sterility, 2007. 87(2): p. 288-296
43. Lindheim, S.R. and M.V. Sauer, Expectations of recipient couples awaiting an anonymous oocyte donor match. Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics, 1998. 15(7): p. 444-446
Published
Issue
Section
License
The Copyright Form should be downloaded and signed by corresponding author in the fourth step "upload supplementary files" during submission process.
After acceptance, copyright form should be downloaded and signed by all authors one by one ( "summery --> supp. file" part and click on "add a supplementary file" link).
