Skip Navigation


Hum. Reprod. Advance Access originally published online on March 10, 2005
Human Reproduction 2005 20(6):1661-1669; doi:10.1093/humrep/deh831
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF ) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
20/6/1661    most recent
deh831v1
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 (11)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by de Lacey, S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by de Lacey, S.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2005. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions{at}oupjournals.org

Parent identity and ‘virtual’ children: why patients discard rather than donate unused embryos

Sheryl de Lacey

Research Centre for Reproductive Health and Repromed, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, The University of Adelaide, South Australia 5005

Email: sheryl.delacey{at}adelaide.edu.au

BACKGROUND: Many patients prefer to donate unused embryos when surveyed. However, it is a source of frustration and curiosity that clinical audits of embryo outcomes show the majority changed their minds. In many clinics, the number of recipients continues to outweigh the number of donors. To plan effective counselling practices, it is important to understand the dynamics of decision-making for patients when determining outcomes for unused embryos. METHODS: Twelve couples and nine women (n=33) who had discarded unused embryos were interviewed using a narrative structure and various interview techniques. Interview transcripts underwent qualitative analysis through which data were grouped thematically according to similarities. Differences were also examined. RESULTS: Participants described their initial choice to donate embryos as an idealistic plan rather than a purposeful decision. Their change of mind was due to two factors: (i) a change in their standpoint from a childless couple to parents; and (ii) a change in the symbolism of the embryo from representing a chance to become pregnant to representing a ‘virtual’ child in cryo-storage. The meaning of embryo donation was likened to child relinquishment. CONCLUSION: Counselling and social policy need to take account of the symbolism of the embryo and reform current practices.

Key words: decisions/discarding embryos/embryo donation


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
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]

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
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 ReprodHome page
S. de Lacey
Embryo research: is disclosing commercial intent enough?
Hum. Reprod., July 1, 2006; 21(7): 1662 - 1667.
[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.