Women’s viewpoints on egg freezing in Austria: an online Q-methodology study

Abstract

Background Egg freezing has emerged as a technology of assisted reproductive medicine that allows women to plan for the anticipated loss of fertility and hence to preserve the option to conceive with their own eggs. The technology is surrounded by value-conflicts and is subject to ongoing discussions. This study aims at contributing to the empirical-ethical debate by exploring women’s viewpoints on egg freezing in Austria, where egg freezing for social reasons is currently not allowed. Methods Q-methodology was used to identify prevailing viewpoints on egg freezing. 46 female participants ranked a set of 40 statements onto a 9-column forced choice ranking grid according to the level of agreement. Participants were asked to explain their ranking in a follow-up survey. By-person factor analysis was used to identify distinct viewpoints which were interpreted using both the quantitative and the qualitative data. Results Three distinct viewpoints were identified: (1) “women should decide for themselves”, (2) “we should accept nature but change policy”, and (3) “we need an informed societal debate”. These viewpoints provide insights into how biomedical innovations such as egg freezing are perceived by women in Austria and illustrate the normative tensions regarding such innovations. Conclusions Acknowledging the different prioritizations of values regarding assisted reproductive technologies is important to better understand the underlying normative tensions in a country where egg freezing for social reasons is currently not allowed. The study adds new empirical insights to the ongoing debate by outlining and discussing viewpoints of those directly affected: women. Following up on the lay persons perspective is particularly important in the context of future biomedical innovations that may challenge established norms and create new tensions. It therefore also adds to the societal debate and supports evidence-informed policy making in that regard.

Social Freezing: Pressing Pause on Fertility

“…The first birth using vitrified human oocytes in the U.S. was reported in 2013 [61]; oocyte vitrification was allowed in the French Bioethics law of 2011 but is still debated [62][63][64]. The National Bioethics Council in Israel recommends OC to decrease age-related fertility [65], whereas in EU countries such as Austria, egg freezing for social reasons is currently not allowed but debated [66].…”

Medical versus social egg freezing: the importance of future choice for women’s decision-making

“…One of the main motivations for healthy women who choose SEF is that they lack a stable relationship or other life benchmarks they believe are important before having a child (de Groot et al 2016 ; Kılıç and Göçmen 2018 ; Baldwin et al 2019 ). SEF is considered by some as controversial because of its unnaturalness, the possible risks it can create for healthy women, and the biomedicalisation of a societal problem (Mertes 2018 ; Kostenzer, de Bont, and van Exel 2021 ; Petersen 2021 ). Despite its controversy, SEF has been described as one of the fastest-growing assisted reproductive technologies within Europe, the UK, and other parts of the world (Jackson 2018 ; Johnston et al 2021 ).…”

Freeze the Biological Clock: Discrimination, Disrespect, and Fertility Preservation via Social Freezing

“…For example, the practice is illegal in Austria, France, Hungary, Lithuania, Malta, Serbia, and Slovenia. 7 In Denmark, Norway, Romania, and the United Arab Emirates, there is a storage time limit of five years. In the United Kingdom, it is 10 years.…”