This article argues that the statutory time limits upon the storage of gametes have unintended and perhaps even perverse consequences for women freezing their eggs as insurance against age-related fertility decline. They work against good clinical practice and potentially represent an interference with a woman's right to respect for her family life, which is neither necessary nor proportionate. My claim will be that the statutory time limit, and the options for extension, are no longer fit for purpose.
- Reproductive Medicine
- Cryobanking of Sperm, Ova or Embryos
- In Vitro Fertilization and Embryo Transfer
Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- Observational retrospective study of UK national success, risks and costs for 319,105 IVF/ICSI and 30,669 IUI treatment cycles
- Correlation of IVF outcomes and number of oocytes retrieved: a UK retrospective longitudinal observational study of 172 341 non-donor cycles
- IVF twins: buy one get one free?
- Direct-to-consumer advertising of success rates for medically assisted reproduction: a review of national clinic websites
- Britain’s new preimplantation tissue typing policy: an ethical defence
- Claims for fertility interventions: a systematic assessment of statements on UK fertility centre websites
- Differences between sperm sharing and egg sharing are morally relevant
- Intracytoplasmic sperm injection and other aspects of new reproductive technologies
- Consent agreements for cryopreserved embryos: the case for choice
- The validity of contracts to dispose of frozen embryos