Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > Age-discriminated IVF Access and Evidence-based...

Electronic data

  • Age-Discrimination IVF accepted manuscript

    Rights statement: The final, definitive version of this article has been published in the Journal, Science, Technology, & Human Values, 47 (5), 2022, © SAGE Publications Ltd, 2021 by SAGE Publications Ltd at the Science, Technology, & Human Values page: https://journals.sagepub.com/home/SPP on SAGE Journals Online: http://journals.sagepub.com/

    115 KB, Word document

Links

Text available via DOI:

View graph of relations

Age-discriminated IVF Access and Evidence-based Ageism: Is There a Better Way?

Research output: Contribution to Journal/MagazineJournal articlepeer-review

E-pub ahead of print
<mark>Journal publication date</mark>1/09/2022
<mark>Journal</mark>Science, Technology, and Human Values
Issue number5
Volume47
Number of pages25
Pages (from-to)986-1010
Publication StatusE-pub ahead of print
Early online date18/06/21
<mark>Original language</mark>English

Abstract

Access to state-funded fertility treatments is age-restricted in many countries based on epidemiological evidence showing age-associated fertility decline and aimed at administering scarce resources. In this article, we consider whether age-related restrictions can be considered ageist and what this entails for a normative appraisal of access criteria. We use the UK as a case study due to the state-funded and centrally regulated nature of in vitro fertilization (IVF) provision. We begin by reviewing concepts of ageism and age discrimination in gerontological scholarship and contend that it is analytically useful to differentiate between them when considering age-restricted health services. We then argue that criteria to access IVF could be considered indirectly ageist so far as they rely on an age-related evidence base that manifests ageist categorizations of persons. Lastly, we examine whether there could be more normatively desirable alternatives to devise criteria to access fertility treatment, considering “lifestyle” as a potential candidate. We conclude, however, that lifestyle-based discrimination is problematic because, unlike age-based discrimination, it risks exacerbating existing socioeconomic and ethnic inequalities. © The Author(s) 2021.

Bibliographic note

The final, definitive version of this article has been published in the Journal, Science, Technology, & Human Values, 47 (5), 2022, © SAGE Publications Ltd, 2021 by SAGE Publications Ltd at the Science, Technology, & Human Values page: https://journals.sagepub.com/home/SPP on SAGE Journals Online: http://journals.sagepub.com/