The federation of CECOS is opposed to the expansion of the storage of oocytes for reasons of convenience as proposed by the gynecologists.
The self-preservation of oocytes: “premature” and “irrelevant to date”, judges the National Federation of centers for the study and conservation of human eggs and sperm (CECOS). Authorized in France for women who must follow a treatment that risks making them sterile, for example, in the context of cancer, the technique of oocyte conservation allows them to have a child. Other women do not have access to this technique, which is limited for medical use.
But last December, the National College of French Gynecologists and Obstetricians (CNGOF) declared itself in favor of the self-preservation of oocytes as a “societal” practice. Main argument advanced: the age of the first pregnancy decreases and the fertility of the woman decreases with age. In addition, the new vitrification technique for freezing oocytes guarantees a survival rate of over 80%.
Professor René Frydman, obstetrician-gynecologist and father of the first test-tube baby, sees another advantage in this. This technique would facilitate the creation of “public banks of frozen eggs for donation, as there are sperm banks,” he said. They would allow any woman to keep her eggs and therefore have a child when she wants. But the self-preservation of oocytes for convenience does not achieve consensus among specialists.
The CECOS federation considers that this right open to all stems from an “excessive medicalization of procreation”. For its representatives, in the event that women could keep their oocytes without medical indication, only a small part would be able to use them. Therefore, a majority of them would undergo “unnecessarily” the “aggressive treatments of ovulation stimulation and ovarian puncture”.
In addition, the CECOS consider that this extension of the right to the conservation of oocytes would favor “late pregnancies” with “the well-known complications for the mother and the child beyond 45 years”. This measure would, moreover, be very costly. The Federation estimates the cost of this practice at 3000 euros. As a result, it could lead to unequal access to healthcare if it were not covered by social security. Only the most financially well-off women could afford it. This is why this body prefers that the technique be reserved for populations at risk of premature sterility “.
.