Hum. Reprod. Advance Access originally published online on August 13, 2004
Human Reproduction 2004 19(10):2415-2419; doi:10.1093/humrep/deh441
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Patients' attitudes towards donation of surplus cryopreserved embryos for treatment or research
1 The Fertility Clinic and 2 Laboratory of Reproductive Biology, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark
3 To whom correspondence should be addressed at: The Fertility Clinic, Section 4071, Copenhagen University Hospital, Blegdamsvej 9, DK-2100 Copenhagen, Denmark. Email: susb{at}rh.dk
BACKGROUND: The aim of the study was 2-fold: first, to investigate couples' reasons for not using cryopreserved embryos within the maximum storage period; second, to study their attitudes towards potential embryo donation for specific purposes. METHODS: A questionnaire was sent to 284 IVF/ICSI couples who experienced destruction of their cryopreserved embryos (n=1180) because the cryopreservation period exceeded the Danish legislative limit of 24 months. RESULTS: Seventy-four per cent of the couples responded. The main reasons for not utilizing surplus embryos was ‘successful delivery’ (85%), ‘consider family completed’ (61%) and ‘too short legislative limit for cryopreservation’ (59%). Sixty per cent of the couples agreed to the concept of donation of cryopreserved embryos for infertility research, 57% responded affirmatively to donation for stem cell research and 49% for stem cell treatment, but only 29% agreed to the concept of donation to infertile couples. Multiple logistic regression analysis showed that delivery of a child after IVF treatment (OR 3.8, 95% CI 1.4–10.2) and female age <35 years (OR 2.2, 95% CI 1.3–6.0) were predictive of agreement to the idea of donation for stem cell research and stem cell treatment respectively; however, male age, duration of infertility, mode of conception (IVF or ICSI) and having IVF children were not significant predictors. The following predictive variables were entered into the analysis: female and male age, duration of infertility, IVF versus ICSI, donor semen and +/– IVF children. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that 23% of all couples having cryopreserved embryos do not utilize them for further treatment within the legislative storage period of 2 years. A major reason is successful delivery. More than half of these patients agreed to the concept of donation of surplus outdated embryos for research, whereas less than one-third agreed to donation to other infertile couples. Based on these figures, an alternative utilization of surplus embryos for stem cell research would require a 100-fold larger pool of available embryos to provide a realistic basis for this purpose.
Key words: cryopreserved embryos/embryo donation/infertility treatment/research/stem cell
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  M. N. Svendsen and L. Koch Unpacking the 'Spare Embryo': Facilitating Stem Cell Research in a Moral Landscape Social Studies of Science, February 1, 2008; 38(1): 93 - 110. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 M. N. Svendsen Between Reproductive and Regenerative Medicine: Practising Embryo Donation and Civil Responsibility in Denmark Body Society, December 1, 2007; 13(4): 21 - 45. [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 G. Fuscaldo, S. Russell, and L. Gillam How to facilitate decisions about surplus embryos: patients' views Hum. Reprod., December 1, 2007; 22(12): 3129 - 3138. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
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]
|
|
|
|
|
|
B. C. Heng Independent counselling on embryo donation for infertility patients Hum. Reprod., August 1, 2007; 22(8): 2346 - 2348. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
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]
|
|