Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF ) Freely available
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (20)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Söderström-Anttila, V.
Right arrow Articles by Siegberg, R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Söderström-Anttila, V.
Right arrow Articles by Siegberg, R.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Human Reproduction, Vol. 16, No. 6, 1120-1128, June 2001
© 2001 European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology

Embryo donation: outcome and attitudes among embryo donors and recipients

Viveca Söderström-Anttila1, Tuija Foudila, Ulla-Riitta Ripatti and Rita Siegberg

The Family Federation of Finland, Infertility Clinic, Helsinki, Finland

The outcome of an embryo donation programme was evaluated and attitudes among donors and recipients studied by means of a questionnaire survey. A total of 27 couples went through 54 treatment cycles with frozen–thawed embryos donated by other infertile couples. The indications for treatment were premature or incipient ovarian failure in combination with severe male factor infertility. The mean age of the recipient women was 36 years, and that of the recipient men was 35 years. The mean duration of infertility was 8 years (range 2–19 years). Forty-six couples donated 209 excess frozen embryos to the programme. The clinical pregnancy rate in the recipients was 27.8% (15/54) per embryo transfer. An average of 1.9 embryos were transferred on each occasion. The response rate to the questionnaire was high (80–91%). Significantly more recipients (69%) than donors (47%) considered that the child should be informed about the manner of conception (P < 0.05). Some 29% of recipients and 42% of donors thought that the child should receive identifying information concerning the donor couple. The interest of the offspring, not only as regards knowing his/her genetic origin but also knowing full-blood genetic siblings, should be kept in mind in embryo donation programmes.

Key words: anonymity/attitudes/embryo donation/infertility/recipients

1 To whom correspondence should be addressed at: Infertility Clinic, The Family Federation of Finland, PO Box 849, FIN-00101 Helsinki, Finland. E-mail: viveca.soderstrom-anttila{at}vaestoliitto.fi


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Hum ReprodHome page
S. Goedeke and D. Payne
Embryo donation in New Zealand: a pilot study
Hum. Reprod., August 1, 2009; 24(8): 1939 - 1945.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Hum ReprodHome page
F. MacCallum
Embryo donation parents' attitudes towards donors: comparison with adoption
Hum. Reprod., March 1, 2009; 24(3): 517 - 523.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
J. Med. EthicsHome page
J Burr and P Reynolds
Thinking ethically about genetic inheritance: liberal rights, communitarianism and the right to privacy for parents of donor insemination children
J. Med. Ethics, April 1, 2008; 34(4): 281 - 284.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Hum ReprodHome page
C.R. Newton, J. Fisher, V. Feyles, F. Tekpetey, L. Hughes, and D. Isacsson
Changes in patient preferences in the disposal of cryopreserved embryos
Hum. Reprod., December 1, 2007; 22(12): 3124 - 3128.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Hum ReprodHome page
F. MacCallum and S. Golombok
Embryo donation families: mothers' decisions regarding disclosure of donor conception
Hum. Reprod., November 1, 2007; 22(11): 2888 - 2895.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Hum ReprodHome page
S. de Lacey
Decisions for the fate of frozen embryos: Fresh insights into patients' thinking and their rationales for donating or discarding embryos
Hum. Reprod., June 1, 2007; 22(6): 1751 - 1758.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Hum Reprod UpdateHome page
O. van den Akker
A review of family donor constructs: Current research and future directions
Hum. Reprod. Update, March 1, 2006; 12(2): 91 - 101.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Hum ReprodHome page
S. de Lacey
Parent identity and 'virtual' children: why patients discard rather than donate unused embryos
Hum. Reprod., June 1, 2005; 20(6): 1661 - 1669.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Hum ReprodHome page
S. Bangsboll, A. Pinborg, C. Yding Andersen, and A. Nyboe Andersen
Patients' attitudes towards donation of surplus cryopreserved embryos for treatment or research
Hum. Reprod., October 1, 2004; 19(10): 2415 - 2419.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Hum ReprodHome page
P. Eydoux, F. Thepot, F. Fellmann, C. Francannet, B. Simon-Bouy, P. Jouannet, J. L. Bresson, J. P. Siffroi, and the Commission de Genetique de la Federation Franc
How can the genetic risks of embryo donation be minimized?: Proposed guidelines of the French Federation of CECOS (Centre d'Etude et de Conservation des Oeufs et du Sperme)
Hum. Reprod., August 1, 2004; 19(8): 1685 - 1688.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Hum ReprodHome page
C. A. McMahon, F. L. Gibson, G. I. Leslie, D. M. Saunders, K. A. Porter, and C. C. Tennant
Embryo donation for medical research: attitudes and concerns of potential donors
Hum. Reprod., April 1, 2003; 18(4): 871 - 877.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Hum ReprodHome page
C. R. Newton, A. McDermid, F. Tekpetey, and I. S. Tummon
Embryo donation: attitudes toward donation procedures and factors predicting willingness to donate
Hum. Reprod., April 1, 2003; 18(4): 878 - 884.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]



Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.