Skip Navigation

Human Reproduction 2007 22(12):3129-3138; doi:10.1093/humrep/dem325
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF )
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 arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Fuscaldo, G.
Right arrow Articles by Gillam, L.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Fuscaldo, G.
Right arrow Articles by Gillam, L.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2007. 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@oxfordjournals.org

How to facilitate decisions about surplus embryos: patients’ views

Giuliana Fuscaldo1,3, Sarah Russell2 and Lynn Gillam1

1 Centre for Health and Society, University of Melbourne, Parkville 3010, Victoria, Australia 2 Research Matters, Fitzroy North 3068, Victoria, Australia

3 Corresponding author. E-mail: giuliana.fuscaldo{at}med.monash.edu.au

BACKGROUND: In Victoria, Australia, legislation governing fertility treatment provides that surplus human embryos must not be stored for longer than 5 years. Couples must then choose one of three options: discard, donate to research or donate to another infertile couple. Previous research suggests that many people find these decisions difficult and emotionally distressing. This study aims to elucidate the nature of these difficulties and to identify ways in which the decision-making process could be facilitated.

METHODS: This project used a combination of qualitative research methods. In total, 42 people agreed to participate in either a structured interview or a group discussion. All participants had completed IVF treatment and had surplus embryos in storage. The aim of the interviews was to discuss participants’ decision making regarding their surplus embryos. Data were thematically analysed.

RESULTS: Most participants described the decision-making process as difficult and emotional. Findings indicate that participants could be assisted by more information about each of their current options, and opportunities to talk to others in similar situations. Many responded positively to the idea of having more options, including choice about which research projects to donate to (directed research), and about the recipients of their donated embryos (directed donation).

CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that there are practical ways to assist people in making decisions about their surplus embryos, which could be easily implemented. In addition, the study demonstrated interest in the possibility of directed donation to other couples.

Key words: frozen embryos/embryo donation/embryo disposition/embryo research/patient attitudes

Submitted on May 25, 2007; resubmitted on July 29, 2007; accepted on August 13, 2007.


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
A.M. van Peperstraten, W.L.D.M. Nelen, R.P.M.G Hermens, L. Jansen, E. Scheenjes, D.D.M. Braat, R.P.T.M. Grol, and J.A.M. Kremer
Why don't we perform elective single embryo transfer? A qualitative study among IVF patients and professionals
Hum. Reprod., September 1, 2008; 23(9): 2036 - 2042.
[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.