What is the access to NHS fertility treatments for women with Mayer-Rokitansky-Küster-Hauser syndrome across England? A freedom of information study

This work has revealed that only a small proportion of ICBs (7/42, 17%) treat women with MRKH like any other woman applying for NHS fertility treatment. The study revealed that decisions by ICBs not to fund IVF treatments based on concerns about commercial surrogacy create significant inequities. It unfairly penalises individuals with MRKH who require surrogacy as part of their fertility treatment. These individuals face a unique set of reproductive challenges, and denying them access to NHS-funded IVF treatments exacerbates existing inequalities. Furthermore, if individuals with MRKH accept that the expenses of the surrogate will be met by them rather than the ICB, it is unjustifiable to deny them the IVF component of the treatment if they meet all the other criteria for eligibility. Moreover, the fact that some ICBs do fund IVF for individuals with MRKH indicates that legal concerns regarding surrogacy are unfounded and inconsistently applied. This discrepancy highlights the need for a standardised approach that ensures equitable access to fertility treatments across all regions.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
BMJ Open
Published
2025-10-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2025-102664
Primary Topic
Gynecological conditions and treatments
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

What is the access to NHS fertility treatments for women with Mayer-Rokitansky-Küster-Hauser syndrome across England? A freedom of information study

Mehrunisha Suleman, Pedro Melo, Sarah Armstrong, Kirsty Milford et al.
BMJ Open
Gynecological conditions and treatments
article

What is the access to NHS fertility treatments for women with Mayer-Rokitansky-Küster-Hauser syndrome across England? A freedom of information study

Mehrunisha Suleman, Pedro Melo, Sarah Armstrong, Kirsty Milford, Naomi S. Crouch, Isla Mair
article en

Abstract

This work has revealed that only a small proportion of ICBs (7/42, 17%) treat women with MRKH like any other woman applying for NHS fertility treatment. The study revealed that decisions by ICBs not to fund IVF treatments based on concerns about commercial surrogacy create significant inequities. It unfairly penalises individuals with MRKH who require surrogacy as part of their fertility treatment. These individuals face a unique set of reproductive challenges, and denying them access to NHS-funded IVF treatments exacerbates existing inequalities. Furthermore, if individuals with MRKH accept that the expenses of the surrogate will be met by them rather than the ICB, it is unjustifiable to deny them the IVF component of the treatment if they meet all the other criteria for eligibility. Moreover, the fact that some ICBs do fund IVF for individuals with MRKH indicates that legal concerns regarding surrogacy are unfounded and inconsistently applied. This discrepancy highlights the need for a standardised approach that ensures equitable access to fertility treatments across all regions.

BMJ OpenVol. 15(10)
Royal Navy (GB), University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust (GB), University of Oxford (GB), University Hospitals Bristol and Weston NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
Openalex Percentile: Top 64%
Gynecological conditions and treatments
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.