Premium
Updated status of assisted reproductive technology activities in the Asia‐Oceania region
Author(s) -
Li H. W. Raymond,
Tank Jaydeep,
Haththotuwa Rohana
Publication year - 2018
Publication title -
journal of obstetrics and gynaecology research
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.597
H-Index - 50
eISSN - 1447-0756
pISSN - 1341-8076
DOI - 10.1111/jog.13742
Subject(s) - assisted reproductive technology , medicine , government (linguistics) , subsidy , family medicine , artificial insemination , legislation , reproductive technology , reproductive medicine , economic growth , socioeconomics , gynecology , environmental health , demography , political science , infertility , pregnancy , law , linguistics , philosophy , genetics , sociology , economics , biology , lactation
Aim To report on a descriptive survey on the availability, regulation and funding issues of assisted reproductive technology (ART) activities in member countries of the Asia and Oceania Federation of Obstetrics and Gynaecology (AOFOG). Methods A survey questionnaire was initially sent out to representatives of the 28 member national societies of AOFOG in 2015, and final verification and compilation of data were completed in November 2017. Results A response was received from 24 countries. Artificial insemination and in vitro fertilization treatments were available in 23 and 22 of them respectively. Of the 23 responding countries where ART activities were carried out, these were governed by legislation or national regulations in 12 of them, and 15 had a national registry, to which reporting was compulsory in 11 of them. Only Australia, Nepal, New Zealand and Saudi Arabia allowed ART treatment for both single men and women, while only Australia and New Zealand allowed ART treatment for homosexual couples. In Vietnam, ART treatment was allowed only for single women (but not men) from the same country. In Israel, only single or homosexual women but not men were allowed to receive ART treatment. Government subsidy was available for artificial insemination and in vitro fertilization treatments in 10 and 9 responding countries respectively. Compensation to gamete donors and surrogate mothers were allowed in some countries, mostly on the basis of covering the medical treatment cost and compensation for leave from work. Conclusion There is great diversity in the availability of various forms of ART treatments, their regulations and data‐monitoring mechanisms, as well as funding issues, among Asian‐Oceanic countries. Availability of ART activities involving donor gametes or surrogacy, or those for nonheterosexual unions, is still limited in this region.