Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41629908›Full record

ArticleBMC medical ethics2026

Ethical analysis of the European normative framework on fertility preservation.

Silviya Aleksandrova-Yankulovska, Marcin Orzechowski, Katharina Hancke, Karin Bundschu, Florian Steger

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical ethics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Observational
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Silviya Aleksandrova-YankulovskaInstitute of the History, Philosophy and Ethics of Medicine, Ulm University, Oberberghof 7, Ulm, 89081, Germany. silviya.aleksandrova-yankulovska@uni-ulm.de.ORCID 0000-0002-9749-8807
Marcin OrzechowskiInstitute of the History, Philosophy and Ethics of Medicine, Ulm University, Oberberghof 7, Ulm, 89081, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-4244-7989
Katharina HanckeDepartment of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, Ulm University, Prittwitzstr. 43, Ulm, 89075, Germany.ORCID 0009-0007-8148-3911
Karin BundschuDepartment of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, Ulm University, Prittwitzstr. 43, Ulm, 89075, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-9329-8958
Florian StegerInstitute of the History, Philosophy and Ethics of Medicine, Ulm University, Oberberghof 7, Ulm, 89081, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-8108-1591

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFertility preservation involves storing reproductive tissues or cells to enable reproduction later in life. It is often part of assisted reproduction but is also used independently. Our research aim is to study the European normative framework of fertility preservation in view of identifying and ethically analysing the main topics of regulation.

methodsA systematic literature search in EUR-Lex, national legal databases, Science Direct, Web of Science, PubMed, and a subsequent thematic and ethical analysis were performed. Altogether, 63 documents, including 37 law-informing documents and 26 guidelines, were analysed.

resultsTen thematic topics were identified: (I) definitions of fertility preservation; (II) age limits for fertility preservation; (III) type of preserved reproductive biomaterial; (IV) posthumous usage; (V) informed consent; (VI) state/health insurance funding; (VII) storage period; (VIII) social egg freezing; (IX) requirements for partnership status; (X) special provisions for transgender individuals. These topics were assessed against the four bioethical principles. Legal norms mostly reflected the principle of justice, while guidelines focused on beneficence. Among all topics, the most permissively regulated were social egg freezing, partnership status, and fertility preservation for transgender individuals. In contrast, age limits were the most strictly regulated. Overall, the European framework seeks to balance equal access for diverse groups - such as single women, couples, and transgender individuals - with the aim to keep reproduction within traditionally accepted age limits.

conclusionLaws and guidelines dealing with fertility preservation were not equally inclusive for all user groups and they did not provide sufficient guidance on ethically challenging aspects. Our focus was on identifying and ethically analysing common gaps and inconsistencies in the European normative framework rather than suggesting concrete legal changes. The ethical analysis, based on the four principles of bioethics, enabled us to make concrete suggestions for improving the guidelines - particularly by adding ethical content related to the studied topics.

Indexed as

Ethical AnalysisFertility PreservationCryopreservationEuropeFemaleHumansInformed ConsentMaleReproductive Techniques, AssistedSocial JusticeEuropean regulationFertility preservationGuidelinesLegal documentsPrinciples of bioethics

Identifiers

PMID41629908
PMCPMC12930747

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.