Dataset Information

Fertility treatment for the transgender community: a public opinion study.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

The purposes of this study were to evaluate public opinion regarding fertility treatment and gamete cryopreservation for transgender individuals and identify how support varies by demographic characteristics.

Methods

This is a cross-sectional web-based survey study completed by a representative sample of 1111 US residents aged 18-75 years. Logistic regression was used to calculate odd ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of support for/opposition to fertility treatments for transgender people by demographic characteristics, adjusting a priori for age, gender, race, and having a biological child.

Results

Of 1336 people recruited, 1111 (83.2%) agreed to participate, and 986 (88.7%) completed the survey. Most respondents (76.2%) agreed that "Doctors should be able to help transgender people have biological children." Atheists/agnostics were more likely to be in support (88.5%) than Christian-Protestants (72.4%; OR = 3.10, CI = 1.37-7.02), as were younger respondents, sexual minorities, those divorced/widowed, Democrats, and non-parents. Respondents who did not know a gay person (10.0%; OR = 0.20, CI = 0.09-0.42) or only knew a gay person without children (41.4%; OR = 0.29, CI = 0.17-0.50) were more often opposed than those who knew a gay parent (48.7%). No differences in gender, geography, education, or income were observed. A smaller majority of respondents supported doctors helping transgender minors preserve gametes before transitioning (60.6%) or helping transgender men carry pregnancies (60.1%).

Conclusions

Most respondents who support assisted and third-party reproduction also support such interventions to help transgender people have children.

SUBMITTER: Goldman RH

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5699998 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Study questionHow do adult transgender and gender diverse (TGD) people, who are infertile due to prior gender-affirming treatment, view their current infertility and their reproductive decisions made in the past?Summary answerIn a time where sterilization was mandatory, transgender adolescents prioritized gender-affirming treatment over their future fertility and would make the same choice today despite emotional challenges related to infertility experienced by some.What is known alreadyUnder transgender law in the Netherlands, sterilization was required for legal gender recognition until 2014, resulting in permanent infertility. The long-term consequences of this iatrogenic infertility in transgender adolescents who have now reached adulthood remain underexplored.Study design, size, durationQualitative study design based on 21 in-depth one-on-one semi-structured interviews.Participants/materials, setting, methodsTGD people in a stage of life where family planning may be a current topic were eligible for participation. They all received gender-affirming treatment in adolescence prior to the legislation change in 2014. A purposeful sampling technique was used from participants of another ongoing study. Eleven people assigned female at birth and ten people assigned male at birth were included. Interview transcripts were thematically analysed using a modified version of Braun and Clarke's six steps theory.Main results and the role of chanceSix main themes were generated: (i) personal considerations regarding fertility and fertility preservation in the past; (ii) external considerations regarding fertility and fertility preservation in the past; (iii) current vision on past considerations and decisions; (iv) Current experiences and coping with infertility; (v) future family building; (vi) advice regarding fertility and fertility preservation decision-making.Limitations, reasons for cautionSelection, recall, and choice supportive bias may play a role in interpreting our results.Wider implications of the findingsThis study highlights the importance of tailored counselling and comprehensive information on fertility preservation for transgender individuals, especially adolescents, undergoing gender-affirming treatment.Study funding/competing interest(s)N/A.Trial registration numberN/A.

Project description:Background and objectivesThe unmet demand for kidney transplantation has generated intense controversy about introducing incentives for living kidney donors to increase donation rates. Such debates may affect public perception and acceptance of living kidney donation. This study aims to describe the range and depth of public opinion on financial reimbursement, compensation, and incentives for living kidney donors.Design, setting, participants, & measurementsTwelve focus groups were conducted with 113 participants recruited from the general public in three Australian states in February 2013. Thematic analysis was used to analyze the transcripts.ResultsFive themes were identified: creating ethical impasses (commodification of the body, quandary of kidney valuation, pushing moral boundaries), corrupting motivations (exposing the vulnerable, inevitable abuse, supplanting altruism), determining justifiable risk (compromising kidney quality, undue harm, accepting a confined risk, trusting protective mechanisms, right to autonomy), driving access (urgency of organ shortage, minimizing disadvantage, guaranteeing cost-efficiency, providing impetus, counteracting black markets), and honoring donor deservingness (fairness and reason, reassurance and rewards, merited recompense). Reimbursement and justifiable recompense are considered by the Australian public as a legitimate way of supporting donors and reducing disadvantage. Financial payment beyond reimbursement is regarded as morally reprehensible, with the potential for exploitative commercialism. Some contend that regulated compensation could be a defensible strategy to increased donation rates provided that mechanisms are in place to protect donors.ConclusionsThe perceived threat to community values of human dignity, goodwill, and fairness suggests that there could be strong public resistance to any form of financial inducements for living kidney donors. Policy priorities addressing the removal of disincentives may be more acceptable to the public.