Skip Navigation


Hum. Reprod. Advance Access originally published online on June 13, 2006
Human Reproduction 2006 21(8):1956-1960; doi:10.1093/humrep/del082
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF ) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
21/8/1956    most recent
del082v1
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (2)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Zutlevics, T.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Zutlevics, T.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2006. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

OPINION

Should ART be offered to HIV-serodiscordant and HIV-seroconcordant couples: an ethical discussion?

Tamara Zutlevics

Women’s and Children’s Hospital—Research Institute, Adelaide, Australia

To whom correspondence should be addressed at: Women’s and Children’s Hospital–Research Institute, 72 King William Road, North Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia. E-mail: tamara.zutlevics{at}cywhs.sa.gov.au

Increasingly, fertility clinics are offering their services to human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-serodiscordant couples where the woman is seropositive. In the case of HIV-seroconcordant couples, there remains a general reluctance to provide treatment. This attitude to seroconcordant couples is reminiscent of that once widely held towards serodiscordant couples when the risk of vertical transmission rates in pregnant women was greater than 1–2%. Due to recent advances in HIV clinical care and assisted reproduction technique (ART) procedures directed at reducing the risk of viral transmission during gamete transfer, where good healthcare is available, the current risk rate has fallen to 1–2%. This article deals with the ethical arguments of those who remain opposed to offering HIV-serodiscordant and HIV-seroconcordant couples access to ART. Until these arguments have been addressed, clinics providing ART to such couples cannot be assured that their practices are ethical.

Key words: assisted reproduction/ethics/HIV/seroconcordant/serodiscordant


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Hum Reprod UpdateHome page
S. Ziebe, P. Devroey, and on behalf of the State of the ART 2007 Workshop Gr
Assisted reproductive technologies are an integrated part of national strategies addressing demographic and reproductive challenges
Hum. Reprod. Update, November 1, 2008; 14(6): 583 - 592.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Hum ReprodHome page
P. Barreiro, J. A. Castilla, P. Labarga, and V. Soriano
Is natural conception a valid option for HIV-serodiscordant couples?
Hum. Reprod., September 1, 2007; 22(9): 2353 - 2358.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.