Hum. Reprod. Advance Access published online on March 10, 2005
Human Reproduction, doi:10.1093/humrep/deh831
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1 Research Centre for Reproductive Health and Repromed, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, The University of Adelaide, South Australia 5005
* To whom correspondence should be addressed. 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.
Received November 29, 2004
Revised February 1, 2005
Accepted February 10, 2005
Article
Parent identity and virtual children: why patients discard rather than donate unused embryos
Sheryl de Lacey, E-mail: sheryl.delacey{at}adelaide.edu.au
![]()
Abstract ![]()
CiteULike
Connotea
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
M. Mohler-Kuo, U. Zellweger, A. Duran, M. K. Hohl, F. Gutzwiller, and M. Mutsch Attitudes of couples towards the destination of surplus embryos: results among couples with cryopreserved embryos in Switzerland Hum. Reprod., August 1, 2009; 24(8): 1930 - 1938. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
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] |
||||
![]() |
V. Provoost, G. Pennings, P. De Sutter, J. Gerris, A. Van de Velde, E. De Lissnyder, and M. Dhont Infertility patients' beliefs about their embryos and their disposition preferences Hum. Reprod., April 1, 2009; 24(4): 896 - 905. [Abstract] [Full Text] [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] |
||||
![]() |
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] |
||||
![]() |
S. de Lacey Embryo research: is disclosing commercial intent enough? Hum. Reprod., July 1, 2006; 21(7): 1662 - 1667. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
