ArticleFrontiers in reproductive health2026
Ethical perspectives of fertility preservation through experts' opinions.
Article in Frontiers in reproductive health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Fertility preservation is the process of saving or protecting a person's reproductive substance of human origin intended to be used later in that person's life. Fertility preservation technologies have benefits and risks. Among the most discussed issues is the access to these technologies and their funding. Our study aims at the identification and analysis of specific ethical challenges associated with fertility preservation through the perspective of experts in this field. Methods: Between March and July 2026, 16 qualitative interviews with experts were conducted. The interview guide consisted of 12 open-ended main questions and 5 follow-up questions. The content of the interviews was analysed using thematic analysis by Braun and Clarke. Results: Themes identified through the method of thematic analysis were: 1) autonomous decision-making; 2) benefits and risks of fertility preservation; 3) access to fertility preservation; and 4) funding. Within the themes, sub-themes could be identified. The experts supported the involvement of children in decision-making in an age-appropriate manner. Most experts did not support the allowance of postmortem reproduction, but supported information provision in this regard. Medical benefits and risks prevailed over social benefits and risks. All patients' groups, including those for non-medical indications, should have access to fertility preservation, but funding through health insurance was unanimously supported only for medical indications. Conclusion: The decisions about fertility preservation are decisions influencing the rest of the life of the patients and the fulfilment of the right to reproduction. All patient groups that can benefit from fertility preservation technologies should have access to them, including minors, healthy women, and transgender individuals. Medical indications for fertility preservation should be covered by health insurance, while the funding of non-medical indications is still debatable. The importance of informed consent for fertility preservation was underlined, particularly in paediatric cancer cases, where the involvement of children in decision-making is supported in accordance with their maturity. As successful as fertility preservation technologies might be, full, proper, and individualised information should be provided to patients to avoid the risk of false hope.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.