Call for papers - Reproduction, Technology and Society, a new section in Reproductive BioMedicine Online
Page URL: https://www.bionews.org.uk/page_91674

The debate about single embryo transfer isn't NICE

26 January 2009
By Sandy Starr
Communications Officer at the Progress Educational Trust
Appeared in BioNews 492
This month sees the coming into force of new regulations by the UK's Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA), which seek to ensure that elective single embryo transfer (eSET) for women under 40 becomes standard practice in IVF treatment in the UK.

Under these regulations, public and private fertility clinics will be required by the HFEA to 'maintain a documentary record of the licensed centre's Multiple Births Minimisation Strategy... the outcome of regular audits and evaluations of the progress and effectiveness of the strategy... and a summary log of cases in which multiple embryos have been transferred to a patient who meets the criteria for single embryo transfer as set out in the strategy'. Where multiple embryos are transferred, clinics must provide the HFEA with 'a clear explanation of the reasons for transferring more than one embryo in that particular case' and 'a note confirming that the risks associated with multiple pregnancy have been fully discussed with the patient' (1).

The most outspoken criticism of eSET in the UK has focused not on multiple births as such, but on the inequity of measures to reduce multiple birth that also reduce the chances of IVF patients conceiving, when those unable to afford private IVF treatment are offered so few chances on the NHSto begin with. The standard point of reference for such criticism is the clinical guideline issued in 2004 by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE), specifying that 23 to 39-year-old patients are entitled to expect three free cycles of IVF treatment on the NHS (2). Such levels of provision are, at present, far from a reality (3).

While concern over this inequity is entirely legitimate, it also risks obscuring or distracting from other aspects of eSET that deserve to be debated. I outline five of these aspects here.

First, is eSET coercive? Of the four different options for promoting eSET that the HFEA considered during a public consultation in 2007, the one it eventually chose - requiring all clinics to have a 'Multiple Births Minimisation Strategy' and to be compelled to justify any deviation from this strategy - was nominally the most liberal (4). And yet while stricter policies would have been contentious, they might have benefited from greater transparency and specific biomedical justification. By contrast, compelling every clinic in general terms to minimise multiple births places coercion at one remove from the patient. This could be characterised favourably, as a flexible regime where the clinic gets to exercise discretion. Or it could be characterised unfavourably, as an insidious regime where the patient doesn't know who's calling the shots.

Second, what does the 'e' in 'eSET' actually mean, in both specialist and lay terms? There is an ambiguity at present as to whether 'elective' single embryo transfer means that the patient consciously elects whether or not to have more than one embryo transferred, or whether it simply means that there is a possibility of transferring more than one embryo (because more than one is available), and that therefore someone (be it patient or practitioner) will make a decision as to how many to use. These two meanings have very different implications for the patient.

Third, has sufficient consideration and prominence been given, in discussion of eSET, to the other principal method of avoiding multiple births - namely selective abortion, or multifetal pregnancy reduction (MFPR)? This procedure was ruled out early on in the development of the HFEA's new policy, with the Expert Group on Multiple Births stating in 2006 that 'without repeating all the moral arguments about abortion, it is obvious to our group that eSET is the preferable option' (5). This reticence is understandable, but perhaps 'all the moral arguments about abortion' are unavoidable in this area. Neither the fraught politics of abortion, nor the invasiveness and 'yuck factor' associated with MFPR as compared with eSET, justify sidelining MFPR in public discussion.

Fourth, what are the state's obligations to the citizen when it comes to IVF provision, and does the citizen have concomitant obligations to the state? Implicit in the fact that IVF is (supposed to be) offered for free on the NHS is a good-faith assumption that the state should provide assistance to those who wish to have children, with conditions (a limit of three free cycles) placed upon this provision in order to manage public expense. By contrast, it could be argued that eSET involves a bad-faith assumption, that unless pregnancies brought about under the auspices of public health are of a defined type and exist within defined parameters, then patients risk acting against their own interests or those of their children.

Finally, is the model of patient 'choice' that has become a central plank of UK health policy predicated on the relationship between state and citizen, or (as critics of the choice agenda often argue) on the relationship between business and consumer? Until we arrive at a coherent understanding of what patient choice means, we will be hard-pushed to establish how eSET affects it.

SOURCES & REFERENCES
1) 'Multiple births minimisation strategy' (.pdf 14.9KB), Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, 30 September 2008, p1-2
|  11 July 2020
2) 'Fertility: assessment and treatment for people with fertility problems' (.pdf 3.96MB), National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, 25 February 2004, p5, 24, 44
|  11 July 2020
3) See 'Primary care trust survey: provision of IVF in England 2007' (.pdf 55KB), Department of Health, 23 June 2008
|  11 July 2020
4) 'The best possible start to life' (.pdf 3.96MB), Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, p17-18
|  11 July 2020
5) 'One child at a time: reducing multiple births after IVF' (.pdf 480KB), Peter Braude, Expert Group on Multiple Births after IVF, October 2006, p32
|  11 July 2020
RELATED ARTICLES FROM THE BIONEWS ARCHIVE
9 January 2012 - by Victoria Kay 
There has been a rise in the number of British women choosing to give birth to fewer children following multiple pregnancy, leading to renewed calls for restrictions on the number of embryos implanted during IVF....
21 December 2009 - by Dr Vivienne Raper 
The NHS must improve access to IVF, according to a new policy briefing from the Royal College of Nursing (RCN)...
1 November 2009 - by Sarah Pritchard 
Transferring only one embryo during IVF treatment significantly reduces the risk of multiple births without considerably altering a woman's chances of conceiving and having a baby, report Swedish researchers....
28 September 2009 - by Nishat Hyder 
A report published on 24 September 2009 by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare ('the Institute') has indicated that although an increasing number of women are turning to assisted reproductive technologies (ART) to assist with pregnancy, the number of multiple births is decreasing....
30 March 2009 - by Antony Starza-Allen 
By Antony Blackburn-Starza: Two recent studies, published in the journal Human Reproduction last week, have revealed that implanting a single embryo during IVF procedures may result in improved pregnancy rates and could also be cheaper than when implanting two embryos. Although implanting two or more embryos can improve chances of...
26 January 2009 - by Shantal Rajah 
Elective single embryo transfer (eSET) policy implementation has raised many issues among patients, IVF experts and fund holders. The main concern in relation to this policy is that we do not know how much, and by what percentage, it will reduce the pregnancy rate in our patients. The policy says...
26 January 2009 - by Norbert Gleicher 
On the European side of the Atlantic single embryo transfer (SET) is increasingly becoming standard practice. As a consequence of legislation, as in Belgium, of professional dogma, as in most Scandinavian countries, or the product of the regulatory prowess of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA), as in the...
20 October 2008 - by Sarah Pritchard 
A study into the potential effects of transferring a single embryo (SET) into the womb during IVF treatment has revealed that success rates are likely to drop as a result. The study, published in the journal Human Reproduction, was undertaken by Dr Daniel Brison and his colleagues...
8 September 2008 - by Antony Starza-Allen 
The British Fertility Society (BFS) and the Association of Clinical Embryologists (ACE) have introduced new guidelines aimed at reducing the number of multiple births amongst IVF patients in the UK. The guidelines, published in the journal Human Fertility, recommend that a single embryo transfer (SET) policy should...
7 July 2008 - by Dr Kirsty Horsey 
BioNews reporting from ESHRE conference, Barcelona:By Dr Kirsty Horsey: Delegates at the annual meeting of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology have been told that more mental health problems are faced by parents of twins than of singletons, no matter how the children were conceived. Dr Leila...
HAVE YOUR SAY
Log in to add a Comment.

By posting a comment you agree to abide by the BioNews terms and conditions


Syndicate this story - click here to enquire about using this story.