Articulating Sociology and Clinical Ethics in the Study of ART: The Example of Oocyte Cryopreservation in France

In France, bioethics laws strictly frame ART developments. Yet, medical research regularly challenges the adequacy of the law. In the case of oocyte cryopreservation, the 2011 bioethics law opened a door for the specific case of oocyte donation (donors – no longer required to have birthed children prior to gamete donation – have access to oocyte cryopreservation to preserve their own fertility); furthermore, the technique is also used for cancer patients, prior to infertility-inducing treatments. In December 2012, the French College of OBGYN stated that this technique should be made available to all women, arguing that the law is discriminatory. The underlying rationale is medical: this rising age average at which women have their first child is an important reproductive health problem, as fertility declines with increasing female age; ART using fresh eggs are unable to compensate for this natural fertility decline and egg freezing is therefore thought to be a timely reproductive insurance which should be an option for all women.

In light of this medical perspective, and amidst a vivid public debate on ART (focusing on access to ART for same-sex couples, and – to a lesser extent – surrogacy), what do women think of this fertility preservation technique? How do they perceive its social and ethical implications? We performed a preliminary electronic survey on a hospital web site, aiming at evaluating women’s opinion of oocyte cryopreservation. Our working hypothesis is that the issue of reproductive justice (Bretonnière, 2013) is a predominant concern over medical or ‘social’ risks linked to potentially late motherhood. Departing from a strictly sociological framework, we will analyze the results of this preliminary study from a clinical ethics perspective (Fournier et al., 2012), based on the bioethical principles of autonomy, justice, beneficence, non-maleficence (Beauchamp and Childress, 1994).