Reviewed by

When my colleague Kevin Connolly and I reviewed the literature relating to psychology and infertility almost a quarter of a century ago (Edelmann & Connolly, 1986), I doubt either of us envisaged the exponential growth that has occurred in both psychological research and practice in this exciting field. At that time specialist journals such as Human Reproduction and Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psychology had only just been launched and, while medical science had made huge advances in the investigation and treatment of infertility, psychological issues had received limited attention. Regulation of assisted reproductive technologies (ART) had yet to evolve. In the United Kingdom, the Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority (HFEA) was not established until 1990; the evolution of regulatory bodies in the United States has been rather more complicated (Chang & DeCherney, 2003). The National Advisory Board on Ethics in Reproduction served as an unofficial advisory body that addressed ethical issues in reproduction while the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) has assumed a similar role. The HFEA in the United Kingdom has made counseling provision, by a suitably qualified counselor, mandatory at clinics offering ARTs, and the need for counseling provision in relation to infertility treatments has been included in the frameworks proposed by regulatory bodies in a number of other countries. The position is rather more flexible in the United States with the ASRM suggesting that counseling may be helpful in certain circumstances and for certain individuals