In recent agreements with major pharmaceutical companies like EMD Serono, President Trump has brought common in-vitro fertilization medication prices down to most-favored-nation levels. For couples struggling with infertility, IVF is a common solution when other treatments such as fertility drugs or intrauterine insemination are not possible. Having this option available and affordable for young couples trying to start a family is not only a success for the Trump administration, but a major ethical advancement for America’s healthcare system.
As part of his negotiations with several pharmaceutical companies, employers will have new legal pathways to offer fertility treatment coverage as they would with life or dental insurance. For couples unable to cover the costs of such treatments on their own, this will offer them new hope in their struggles with infertility. Additionally, when purchased directly from TrumpRx.gov, families with incomes below 550% of the poverty line will receive substantial discounts, reducing costs to a fraction of their original price according to a White House fact sheet. The expanded affordability of IVF, especially for working-class families, means that such fertility treatments will not be subject to the same level of healthcare wealth inequality common for newer medical treatments. By expanding access to IVF, the Trump administration has set the precedent for future governmental involvement in the unequal distribution of healthcare treatments. Trump’s role in negotiating healthcare affordability for IVF medications will minimize treatment-access disparities across socioeconomic groups, a longstanding ethical problem in the healthcare sector.
Apart from alleviating the inequitable distribution of fertility medications through his negotiations, Trump has clarified his administration’s viewpoint of the legal protections afforded to embryos. His work to increase IVF access contradicts the ruling of Alabama’s Supreme Court, which designated the death of an in-vitro embryo punishable under the Wrongful Death of a Minor Act. Their ruling inadvertently allowed embryos the same legal protections as humans, even if located in a sub-zero cryo-preservation unit rather than a uterus. The decision was prompted by the accidental destruction of a stored embryo, available for a couple should they choose to have a later IVF cycle without going through hormonal treatments. Alabama’s Supreme Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, thereby potentially criminalizing any complications with the transfer of an in-vitro embryo. However, given Trump’s recent emphasis on family-building and success in expanding access, it is improbable that clinics providing the treatment will be penalized for such medical complications. Indeed, following Alabama’s ruling, Trump called on lawmakers to preserve access to IVF amid halted operations from various clinics, according to NBC news. By prioritizing access to fertilization treatments despite the ethical discussion surrounding embryos, Trump’s policies reveal a pragmatic, family-focused approach to medical ethics, placing opening up options for struggling families above abstract moral debates.
