In vitro fertilisation (IVF) daily practice reveals that couples are willing to take greater risks than doctors if there is a higher chance of pregnancy. Arising from this is a frequently addressed issue regarding the embryo transfer strategy: single or double embryo transfer? The dilemma is faced by patients, as well as physicians, who are caught between the possibility of no pregnancies at all and facing the prospect of iatrogenic twin gestation.
How could the couple's preferences concerning how many children they would like be taken into account in determining the number of embryos transferred? How should the physician exercise his medical responsibility towards his patients and the unborn child? An effective approach could be to enhance a couple’s autonomy by advocating a medical beneficence that incorporates patients’ values. This can be achieved through a case-by-case approach in a deliberative process of decision-making which includes real patient-centred communication.
StaessenCJanssenswillenCVan den AbbeelE. Avoidance of triplet pregnancies by elective transfer of two good quality embryos. Hum Reprod1993; 8: 1650–1653.
2.
FerrarettiAPGoossensVde MouzonJ. Assisted reproductive technology in Europe, 2008: results generated from European registers by ESHRE. Hum Reprod2012; 27: 2571–2584.
3.
AnanthCVChauhanSP. Epidemiology of twinning in developed countries. Semin Perinatol2012; 36: 156–161.
4.
CoetsierTDhontM. Avoiding multiple pregnancies in in-vitro fertilization: who's afraid of single embryo transfer?Hum Reprod1998; 13: 2663–2664.
5.
Practice Committee of Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology; and Practice Committee of American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Elective single-embryo transfer. Fertil Steril2012; 97: 835–842.
6.
GradyRAlaviNValeR. Elective single embryo transfer and perinatal outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Fertil Steril2012; 97: 324–331.
7.
MullinCMFinoMETalebianS. Comparison of pregnancy outcomes in elective single blastocyst transfer versus double blastocyst transfer stratified by age. Fertil Steril2010; 93: 1837–1843.
8.
GuerifFLe GougeAGiraudeauB. Limited value of morphological assessment at days 1 and 2 to predict blastocyst development potential: a prospective study based on 4042 embryos. Hum Reprod2007; 22: 1973–1981.
9.
McLernonDJHarrildKBerghC. Clinical effectiveness of elective single versus double embryo transfer: meta-analysis of individual patient data from randomised trials. BMJ2010; 341: c6945–c6945.
10.
PandianZBhattacharyaSOzturkO. Number of embryos for transfer following in-vitro fertilisation or intra-cytoplasmic sperm injection. Cochrane Database Syst Rev2004; 4: CD003416–CD003416.
11.
MorcelKLavouéVBeuchéeA. Perinatal morbidity and mortality in twin pregnancies with dichorionic placentas following assisted reproductive techniques or ovarian induction alone: a comparative study. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol2010; 153: 138–142.
12.
PharoahPO. Risk of cerebral palsy in multiple pregnancies. Clin Perinatol2006; 33: 301–313.
13.
MinJKHughesEYoungD. Elective single embryo transfer following in vitro fertilization. J Obstet Gynaecol Can2010; 32: 363–377.
14.
WalkerMCMurphyKEPanS. Adverse maternal outcomes in multifetal pregnancies. BJOG2004; 111: 1294–1296.
15.
OlivennesFGolombokSRamogidaC. Behavioral and cognitive development as well as family functioning of twins conceived by assisted reproduction: findings from a large population study. Fertil Steril2005; 84: 725–733.
16.
van WelyMTwiskMMolBW. Is twin pregnancy necessarily an adverse outcome of assisted reproductive technologies?Hum Reprod2006; 21: 2736–2738.
17.
GleicherNBaradD. Twin pregnancy, contrary to consensus, is a desirable outcome in infertility. Fertil Steril2009; 91: 2426–2431.
18.
DonckersJEversJLLandJA. The long-term outcome of 946 consecutive couples visiting a fertility clinic in 2001-2003. Fertil Steril2011; 96: 160–164.
19.
BeauchampTLChildressJF. Principles of biomedical ethics , 5th ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2001.
20.
TuilWSVerhaakCMDe Vries RobbéPF. IVF patients show three types of online behaviour. Hum Reprod2008; 23: 2501–2505.
21.
AartsJWvan den HaakPNelenWL. Patient-focused Internet interventions in reproductive medicine: a scoping review. Hum Reprod Update2012; 18: 211–227.
22.
KahlorLMackertM. Perceptions of infertility information and support sources among female patients who access the Internet. Fertil Steril2009; 91: 83–90.
23.
EmanuelEJEmanuelLL. Four models of the physician-patient relationship. JAMA1992; 267: 2221–2226.
24.
JanssenSMLagro-JanssenAL. Physician's gender, communication style, patient preferences and patient satisfaction in gynecology and obstetrics: a systematic review. Patient Educ Couns2012; 89: 221–226.
25.
ChervenakFAMcCulloughLBLeveneMI. An ethically justified, clinically comprehensive approach to peri-viability: gynaecological, obstetric, perinatal and neonatal dimensions. J Obstet Gynaecol2007; 27: 3–7.
26.
LukassenHGSchönbeckYAdangEM. Cost analysis of singleton versus twin pregnancies after in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril2004; 81: 1240–1246.
