The possibility for healthy women to cryopreserve their oocytes in order to counter future infertility has gained momentum in recent years. However, women tend to cryopreserve oocytes at an age that is suboptimal from a clinical point of view -in their late thirties -when both oocyte quantity and quality have already considerably diminished and success rates for eventually establishing a pregnancy are thus limited. This also gives rise to ethical concerns, as the procedure is seen as giving false hope to (reproductively speaking) older women. We evaluate which measures can be taken to turn social freezing into a procedure that is both clinically and ethically better than the current practice. The main objective of these measures is to convince those women who are most likely to (want to) reproduce at an above average age to cryopreserve their oocytes at a time when this intervention is still likely to lead to a life birth and to discourage fertility clinics from specifically targeting women who have already surpassed the age at which good results can be expected.

Two leading European professional societies, the European Society of Human Genetics and the European Society for Human Reproduction and Embryology, have worked together since 2004 to evaluate the impact of fast research advances at the interface of assisted reproduction and genetics, including their application into clinical practice. In September 2016, the expert panel met for the third time. The topics discussed highlighted important issues covering the impacts of expanded carrier screening, direct-to-consumer genetic testing, voiding of the presumed anonymity of gamete donors by advanced genetic testing, advances in the research of genetic causes underlying male and female infertility, utilisation of massively parallel sequencing in preimplantation genetic testing and non-invasive prenatal screening, mitochondrial replacement in human oocytes, and additionally, issues related to cross-generational epigenetic inheritance following IVF and germline genome editing. The resulting paper represents a consensus of both professional societies involved.

Despite the initial reactions of disapproval, more and more fertility clinics are now offering oocyte cryopreservation to healthy women in order to extend their reproductive options. However, so-called social freezing is not placed on an equal footing with 'regular' IVF treatments where public funding is concerned. In those countries or states where IVF patients receive a number of free cycles, we argue that fertilization and transfer cycles of women who proactively cryopreserved their oocytes should be covered. Moreover, when the argument of justice is consistently applied, coverage should also include the expenses of ovarian stimulation, oocyte retrieval and storage. Different modalities are possible: full coverage from the onset, reimbursement in cash or reimbursement in kind, by offering more free transfer cycles.

Purpose A critical ethical analysis of the initiative of several companies to cover the costs of oocyte cryopreservation for their healthy employees. The main research question is whether such policies promote or confine women's reproductive autonomy. Results A distinction needs to be made between the ethics of AGE banking in itself and the ethics of employers offering it to their employees. Although the utility of the former is expected to be low, there are few persuasive arguments to deny access to oocyte cryopreservation to women who are well informed about the procedure and the success rates. However, it does not automatically follow that it would be ethically unproblematic for employers to offer egg banking to their employees. Conclusions For these policies to be truly 'liberating', a substantial number of conditions need to be fulfilled, which can be reduced to three categories: (1) women should understand the benefits, risks and limitations, (2) women should feel no pressure to take up the offer; (3) the offer should have no negative effect on other family-friendly policies and should in fact be accompanied by such policies. Fulfilling these conditions may turn out to be impossible. Thus, regardless of companies' possible good intentions, women's reproductive autonomy is not well served by offering them companysponsored AGE banking.

In this paper, we aim to stimulate ethical debate about the morally relevant connection between ectogenesis and the foetus as a potential beneficiary of treatment. Ectogenesis could facilitate foetal interventions by treating the foetus independently of the pregnant woman and provide easier access to the foetus if interventions are required. The moral relevance hereof derives from the observation that, together with other developments in genetic technology and prenatal treatment, this may catalyse the allocation of a patient status to the foetus. The topic of foetal medicine is of growing interest to clinicians, and it also deserves due attention from an ethical perspective. To the extent that these developments contribute to the allocation of a patient status to the foetus (and to its respective interests for medical treatment), normative questions arise about how moral responsibilities towards foetal interests should be balanced against the interests of the pregnant woman. We conclude that, even if ectogenesis could facilitate foetal therapy, it is important to remain sensitive to the fact that it would not circumvent the key ethical concerns that come with in utero foetal treatment and that it may even exacerbate potential conflicts between directive treatment recommendations and the pregnant woman’s autonomous decision to the contrary.