Discordant views of experts and laypersons on the adoption of new fertility technology

Background: Healthcare costs are increased by the adoption of novel technologies before solid evidence on efficacy and risks. Oocyte cryopreservation for preserving fertility raises special ethical challenges. We compared opinions of professionals for assisted reproductive technology (ART), bioethicists, medical students and the general population toward the questions: do you support access to oocyte cryopreservation to preserve fertility for personal reasons and who should bear the costs? Methods: The surveys conducted for this study were carried out in Israel included the following: (1) survey of 21 ART unit directors; (2) interviews with 23 bioethics experts; (3) survey of 196 medical students from 2 universities; (4) random digit-dial population-based survey of the public (N = 600). Results: Nearly 80% of ART and bioethics experts and 56% of students thought that oocyte cryopreservation should be allowed even for personal reasons. While expressing concerns about social consequences, bioethicists emphasized individuals' rights. In contrast, among the public, only 40% supported the use of this technology for personal reasons (ranging from 24% among Ultraorthodox Jews and Arabs, to 51% among seculars or with academic education). Of note, 15% were undecided (vs. <2% among students, P<0.001). Most experts suggested private financing of the procedure for personal reasons, whereas the public preferred national or private insurance coverage. Conclusions: Nonexperts present a greater level of ambivalence than experts toward the use of a novel fertility technology for nonmedical reasons. Experts' preferences and interests may facilitate adoption of novel technologies with yet unclear effectiveness and sa