Ovarian tissue transplantation (OTT) is a promising experimental method which may soon become well-established. In cases of minor oncology, where patients’ fertility is seriously threatened by treatment, it may be applied as a unique fertility preservation option. OTT has a dual nature (‘organ’ and ‘gamete’). Many stakeholders are involved, including donor, recipient, child, health-care providers and society at large. There is considerable uncertainty about the long-term consequences of the application of OTT and OT cryopreservation (OTC). Thus, application of OTT gives rise to a number of very different ethico-legal issues and dilemmas which are hard to solve coherently through a principlism-based bioethical approach. This study focuses on such dilemmas and attempts to review them. The role of virtue ethics, which may be combined with principlism, is essential to solve such dilemmas coherently and reasonably. Dealing with conflicts of ethical principles equivalent between them, or moral dilemmas without available answers and mind-sharing in a difficult interpersonal process of decision making, requires a virtue-based ethical approach. Besides, ethico-legal issues related to OTC/OTT are complex issues requiring a multidisciplinary approach (ethical considerations, medical, psychological and social evaluations etc.). We stress the crucial role of multidisciplinary Ethics Committee which is considered indispensable for each reproductive health-care unit practicing OTC/OTT.
DondorpWde WertGPenningsG. ESHRE Task Force on Ethics and Law: oocyte cryopreservation for age-related fertility loss. Hum Reprod2012; 27: 1231–1237.
3.
LorenAWManguPBBeckLN. Fertility preservation for patients with cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology clinical practice guideline update. J Clin Oncol2013; 31: 2500–2510.
4.
Practice Committee of American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Ovarian tissue cryopreservation: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril2014; 101: 1237–1243.
5.
ChuaiYXuXWangA. Preservation of fertility in females treated for cancer. Int J Biol Sci2012; 8: 1005–1012.
6.
QuinnGPStearsmanDKCampo-EngelsteinL. Preserving the right to future children: an ethical case analysis. Am J Bioeth2012; 12: 38–43.
RevelASchenkerJ. Ovarian tissue banking for cancer patients: is ovarian cortex cryopreservation presently justified?Hum Reprod2004; 19: 14–19.
9.
de WertGDondorpWShenfieldF. ESHRE Task Force on Ethics and Law 23: medically assisted reproduction in singles, lesbian and gay couples, and transsexual people. Hum Reprod2014; 29: 1859–1865.
10.
JadoulPDolmansMMDonnezJ. Fertility preservation in girls during childhood: it is feasible, efficient and safe and to whom should it be proposed. Hum Reprod Update2010; 16: 617–630.
11.
Campo-EngelsteinL. Gametes or organs? How should we legally classify ovaries used for transplantation in USA?J Med Ethics2011; 37: 166–170.
12.
DraneJF. Becoming a good doctor. The place of virtue and character in Medical Ethics, Kansas City: Sheed and Ward, 1988.
13.
LeoneS. The features of a ‘Mediterranean’ bioethics. Med Health Care Philos2012; 15: 431–436.
14.
BusquetsERomanBTerribasN. Bioethics in Mediterranean culture: the Spanish experience. Med Health Care Philos2012; 15: 437–451.
15.
PellegrinoDEThomasmaCD. The virtues in medical practice, New York: Oxford University Press, 1993.
16.
MannDW. The virtues in psychiatric practice. Theor Med1997; 18: 21–30.
17.
MacFarlaneB. Researching with integrity: the ethics of academic inquiry, New York: Routledge, 2008.
18.
ImberBJ. The virtues in medical practice. N Engl J Med1994; 331: 280–281.
19.
BraudeDH. Intuition in medicine: a philosophical defense of clinical reasoning, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2012.
20.
ResnikDB. Ethical virtues in scientific research. Account Res2012; 19: 329–343.
21.
DeMarcoJP. Principlism and moral dilemmas: a new principle. J Med Ethics2005; 31: 101–105.
22.
KuczewskiM. Casuistry and principlism: the convergence of method in biomedical ethics. Theor Med Bioeth1998; 19: 509–524.
23.
GraciaCRGraciaJJEChenS. Ethical dilemmas in oncofertility: an exploration of three clinical scenarios. Cancer Treat Res2010; 156: 195–208.
24.
ZebrackBJCasillasJNohrL. Fertility issues for young adult survivors of childhood cancer. Psychooncology2004; 13: 689–699.
25.
QuinnGPVadaparampilST. Fertility preservation and adolescent/young adult cancer patients: physician communication challenges. J Adolesc Health2009; 44: 394–400.
26.
HershbergerPEFinneganLPiercePF. The decision-making process of young adult women with cancer who considered fertility cryopreservation. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs2013; 42: 59–69.
Tomasi-ContNLambertiniMHulsboschS. Strategies for fertility preservation in young early breast cancer patients. Breast2014; 23: 503–510.
29.
de WertGDondorpWPenningsG. ESHRE Task Force on Ethics and Law: intrafamilial medically assisted reproduction. Hum Reprod2011; 26: 504–509.
30.
QuinnGPVadaparampilSTJacobsenPB. Frozen hope: fertility preservation for women with cancer. J Midwifery Womens Health2010; 55: 175–180.
31.
CapronAM. Parenthood and frozen embryos: more than property and privacy. Hastings Cent Rep1992; 22: 32–34.
32.
FlacksS. Drug control, human rights, and the right to the highest attainable standard of health: a reply to Saul Takahashi. Hum Rights Q2011; 33: 856–877.
33.
PorteriCPasqualettiPTogniE. Public’s attitudes on participation in a biobank for research: an Italian survey. BMC Med Ethics2014; 15: 81–81.
34.
BlakeVK. Ovaries, testicles, and uteruses, oh my! Regulating reproductive tissue transplants. William Mary J Women Law2013; 19: 353–392.
35.
LeviRBDrotarD. Health-related quality of life in childhood cancer: discrepancy in parent–child reports. Int J Cancer Suppl1999; 12: 58–64.
36.
DavisDS. The parental investment factor and the child’s right to an open future. Hastings Cent Rep2009; 39: 24–27.
37.
DarbyRJ. The child’s right to an open future: is the principle applicable to non-therapeutic circumcision?J Med Ethics2013; 39: 463–468.
38.
ZolothLBackhusLWoodruffT. Waiting to be born: the ethical implications of the generation of ‘NUBorn’ and ‘NUAge’ mice from pre-pubertal ovarian tissue. Am J Bioeth2008; 8: 21–29.
GardinoSRodriguezSCampo-EngelsteinL. Infertility, cancer, and changing gender norms. J Cancer Surviv2011; 5: 152–157.
47.
FabbriRVicentiRMaccioccaM. Cryopreservation of ovarian tissue in pediatric patients. Obstet Gynecol Int2012; 2012: 910698–910698.
48.
TangSTLiuTWLaiMS. Congruence of knowledge, experiences, and preferences for disclosure of diagnosis and prognosis between terminally-ill cancer patients and their family caregivers in Taiwan. Cancer Invest2006; 24: 360–366.
49.
BukovskyA. Can ovarian infertility be treated with bone marrow- or ovary-derived germ cells?Reprod Biol Endocrinol2005; 3: 36–36.
50.
BlakeV. The new frontier in ethics and infertility: reproductive tissue transplant – a case study of the U.S and the U.K. Amsterdam Law Forum2011; 3: 25–29.
51.
CampbellAV. Why the body matters: uses and abuses of the human body in modern medicine. Singapore Med J2009; 50: 451–455.
52.
SvenaeusF. The relevance of Heidegger’s philosophy of technology for biomedical ethics. Theor Med Bioeth2013; 34: 1–15.
53.
SvenaeusF. What is an organ? Heidegger and the phenomenology of organ transplantation. Theor Med Bioeth2012; 31: 179–196.
54.
PenningsG. Age as a criterion for parenting competence. Reprod Biomed Online2013; 27: 118–120.
55.
American Society of Reproductive Medicine, The Ethics Committee. Child-rearing ability and the provision of fertility services. Fertil Steril2009; 92: 864–865.
56.
VasireddyABewleyS. Tragic outcome of post-menopausal pregnancy: an obstetric commentary. Reprod Biomed Online2013; 27: 121–124.
57.
Le RayCScherierSAnselemO. Association between oocyte donation and maternal and perinatal outcomes in women aged 43 years or older. Hum Reprod2012; 27: 896–901.
58.
GulinoMPacchiarottiAVergalloGM. Is age the limit for human-assisted reproduction techniques? ‘Yes’, said an Italian judge. J Med Ethics2013; 39: 250–252.
59.
ShawRLGilesDC. Motherhood on ice? A media framing analysis of older mothers in the UK news. Psychol Health2009; 24: 221–236.
60.
PenningsG. Age and assisted reproduction. Med Law1995; 14: 531–541.
61.
ShannerL. The right to procreate: when rights claims have gone wrong. McGill Law J1995; 40: 823–874.
62.
General Medical Council (GMC). Good medical practice, explanatory guidance 2013, www.gmc-uk.org/guidance/ (accessed 24 February 2015).
63.
BockstaeleLTsepelidisSDechene. Safety of ovarian tissue autotransplantation for cancer patients. Obstet Gynecol Int2012; 2012: 495142–495142.
64.
HermerénG. The principle of proportionality revisited: interpretations and applications. Med Health Care Philos2012; 15: 373–382.
65.
VomvolakiEKalmantisKKiosesE. The effect of hysterectomy on sexuality and psychological changes. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care2006; 11: 23–23.
66.
SajjadIBainesLSSalifuM. The dynamics of recipient-donor relationships in living kidney transplantation. Am J Kidney Dis2007; 50: 834–854.
67.
de CastroEKSoledad Reyes ViguerasEVenzon ThomasCLive donor kidney transplants: psychological aspects of the donor–receiver relationship. In: RandhawaG (ed). Organ donation and transplantation – public policy and clinical perspectives, Rijeka, Croatia: InTech, 2012, pp. 141–146.
68.
Sozeri-VarmaGKalkan-OğuzhanoğluNKaradağF. The effect of hysterectomy and/or oophorectomy on sexual satisfaction. Climacteric2011; 14: 275–281.
69.
MorYSSchenkerJG. Ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome and thrombotic events. Am J Reprod Immunol2014; 72: 541–548.
70.
BedaiwyMAShahinAYFalconeT. Reproductive organ transplantation: advances and controversies. Fertil Steril2008; 90: 2031–2955.
71.
Girlanda R. Complications of post-transplant immunosuppression. In: Andrades JA (ed) Regenerative medicine and tissue engineering. Rijeka, Croatia: InTech, 2013, ch.33.
72.
DolmansMMMarinescuCSaussoyP. Reimplantation of cryopreserved ovarian tissue from patients with acute lymphoblastic leukemia is potentially unsafe. Blood2010; 116: 2908–2914.
73.
OktayKBuyukE. Ovarian transplantation in humans: indications, techniques and the risk of reseeding cancer. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol2005; 113: S45–47.
74.
DonnezJMartinez-MadridBJadoulP. Ovarian tissue cryopreservation and transplantation: a review. Hum Reprod Update2006; 12: 519–535.
75.
RossouwJEAndersonGLPrenticeRL. Writing Group for the Women’s Health Initiative Investigators. Risks and benefits of estrogen plus progestin in healthy postmenopausal women: principal results from the Women’s Health Initiative randomized controlled trial. JAMA2002; 288: 321–333.
76.
MirkesSR. The ethics of ovarian tissue transplantation: a teleological perspective. Ethics Med2001; 27: 109–123.
77.
LucenaEBernalDPLucenaC. Successful ongoing pregnancies after vitrification of oocytes. Fertil Steril2006; 85: 108–111.
78.
KondapalliLAOvarian tissue cryopreservation and transplantation. In: GraciaCWoodruffTK (eds). Oncofertility medical practice: clinical issues and implementation, New York: Springer Science and Business Media, 2012, pp. 63–75.
PenningsGde WertGShenfieldF. ESHRE Task Force on Ethics and Law 13: the welfare of the child in medically assisted reproduction. Hum Reprod2007; 22: 2585–2588.
81.
CallahanD. Individual good and common good: a communitarian approach to bioethics. Perspect Biol Med2003; 46: 496–507.
82.
MeekerHJ. Issues of property, ethics and consent in the transplantation of fetal reproductive tissue. Berkeley Technol Law J1994; 9: 185–209.
83.
AllmarkP. Virtue and austerity. Nurs Philos2013; 14: 45–52.
84.
JohnsonAG. The gender knot. Unraveling our patriarchal legacy, 3rd ed. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press, 2014.
85.
MertesH. The portrayal of healthy women requesting oocyte cryo-preservation. Facts Views Vis Obgyn2013; 5: 141–146.
86.
FrankfurtHG. The reasons of love, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2004.
87.
CutasDSmajdorA. Postmenopausal motherhood reloaded: advanced age and in vitro derived gametes. Hypatia2015; 30: 386–402.
88.
RichmanKA. Medicine and society. Achieving a shared view of treatment goals. Virtual Mentor2007; 9: 451–454.
89.
VenkatapuramS. Health, vital goals, and central human capabilities. Bioethics2013; 27: 271–279.
90.
AhlzénR. Illness as unhomelike being-in-the-world? Phenomenology and medical practice. Med Health Care Philos2011; 14: 323–331.
91.
WyndhamNMarin FigueiraPGPatrizioP. A persistent misperception: assisted reproductive technology can reverse the ‘aged biological clock’. Fertil Steril2012; 97: 1044–1047.
92.
KronesTNeuwohnerEEl AnsariS. Kinderwunsch und Wunschkinder. Moeglichkeiten und Grenzen der In-vitro-Fertilisations-Bahandlung. [Desire for a child and desired children – possibilities and limits of reproductive biomedicine]. Ethik Med2006; 18: 51–62.
93.
TanSQTanAWLauMS. Social oocyte freezing: a survey among Singaporean female medical students. J Obstet Gynaecol Res2014; 40: 1345–1352.
94.
SvenaeusF. The relationship between empathy and sympathy in good health care. Med Health Care Philos2015; 18: 267–277.
95.
SvenaeusF. Empathy as a necessary condition of phronesis: a line of thought for medical ethics. Med Health Care Philos2014; 17: 293–299.
96.
LoewyEH. In defense of paternalism. Theor Med Bioeth2005; 26: 445–468.
97.
American Society for Reproductive Medicine, Office of Public Affairs. Preserving fertility in transmen, www.asrm.org/Preserving_Fertility_in_Transmen/ (2014, accessed 24 February 2015).
