Reproductive BioMedicine Online
Volume 20, Issue 7 , Pages 880-891 , June 2010

Reflections by patients who undergo IVF on the use of their supernumerary embryos for science

  • V. Provoost

      Affiliations

    • Bioethics Institute Ghent, Ghent University, Blandijnberg 2, B-9000 Ghent, Belgium
    • Research Foundation – Flanders (FWO), Brussels, Belgium
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author.
    • ,
  • G. Pennings

      Affiliations

    • Bioethics Institute Ghent, Ghent University, Blandijnberg 2, B-9000 Ghent, Belgium
    • ,
  • P. De Sutter

      Affiliations

    • Department of Reproductive Medicine, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium
    • ,
  • J. Gerris

      Affiliations

    • Department of Reproductive Medicine, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium
    • ,
  • A. Van de Velde

      Affiliations

    • Department of Reproductive Medicine, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium
    • ,
  • M. Dhont

      Affiliations

    • Department of Reproductive Medicine, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium

Received 2 July 2009 ,Revised 26 August 2009 ,Accepted 19 January 2010.

References 

  1. Bangsboll S, Pinborg A, Yding Andersen C, et al. Patients’ attitudes towards donation of surplus cryopreserved embryos for treatment or research. Hum. Reprod. 2004;19:2415–2419
  2. Barratt CL, St John JC, Afnan M. Clinical challenges in providing embryos for stem-cell initiatives. Lancet. 2004;364:115–118
  3. Bjuresten K, Hovatta O. Donation of embryos for stem cell research – how many couples consent?. Hum. Reprod. 2003;18:1353–1355
  4. Brocki JM, Wearden AJ. A critical evaluation of the use of interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA) in health psychology. Psychol. Health. 2006;21:87–108
  5. Choudhary M, Haimes E, Herbert M, et al. Demographic and treatment characteristics associated with couples’ decisions to donate fresh spare embryos for research. Hum. Reprod. 2004;19:2091–2096
  6. de Lacey S. Parent identity and ‘virtual’ children: why patients discard rather than donate unused embryos. Hum. Reprod. 2005;20:1661–1669
  7. de Lacey S. Patients’ attitudes to their embryos and their destiny: social conditioning?. Best Pract. Res. Clin. Obstet. Gynaecol. 2007;21:101–112
  8. de Lacey S. Decisions for the fate of frozen embryos: fresh insights into parents’ thinking and their rationales for donating or discarding embryos. Hum. Reprod. 2007;22:1751–1758
  9. Elias S, Annas GJ. Generic consent for genetic screening. N. Engl. J. Med. 1994;330:1611–1613
  10. Fade S. Using interpretative phenomenological analysis for public health nutrition and dietetic research: a practical guide. Proc. Nutr. Soc. 2004;63:647–653
  11. Fuscaldo G, Russell S, Gillam L. How to facilitate decisions about surplus embryos: patients’ views. Hum. Reprod. 2007;22:3129–3138
  12. Haimes E, Taylor K. Fresh embryo donation for human embryonic stem cell (hESC) research: the experiences and values of IVF couples asked to be embryo donors. Hum. Reprod. 2009;24:2142–2150
  13. Hammarberg K, Tinney L. Deciding the fate of supernumerary frozen embryos: a survey of couples’ decisions and the factors influencing their choice. Fertil. Steril. 2006;86:86–91
  14. Heng BC. Donation of surplus frozen embryos for stem cell research or fertility treatment-should medical professionals and healthcare institutions be allowed to exercise undue influence on the informed decision of their former patients?. J. Assist. Reprod. Genet. 2006;23:381–382
  15. Hug K. Motivation to donate or not donate surplus embryos for stem-cell research: literature review. Fertil. Steril. 2008;89:263–277
  16. Krones T, Neuwohner E, Bock K, et al. Attitudes of patients, healthcare professionals and ethicists towards embryonic stem cell research and donation of gametes and embryos in Germany. Reprod. Biomed. Online. 2006;13:607–617
  17. Kufner K, Tonne M, Barth J. What is to be done with surplus embryos? Attitude formation with ambivalence in German fertility patients. Reprod. Biomed. Online. 2009;18(S1):68–77
  18. Laruelle C, Englert Y. Psychological study of in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer participants’ attitudes toward the destiny of their supernumerary embryos. Fertil. Steril. 1995;63:1047–1050
  19. Lo B, Chou V, Cedars MI, et al. Informed consent in human oocyte, embryo, and embryonic stem cell research. Fertil. Steril. 2004;82:559–563
  20. Lyerly AD, Faden RR. Embryonic stem cells. Willingness to donate frozen embryos for stem cell research. Science. 2007;317(5834):46–47
  21. Lyerly AD, Steinhauser K, Namey E, et al. Factors that affect infertility patients’ decisions about disposition of frozen embryos. Fertil. Steril. 2006;85:1623–1630
  22. McMahon CA, Gibson F, Cohen J, et al. Mothers conceiving through in vitro fertilization: siblings, setbacks, and embryo dilemmas after five years. Reprod. Technol. 2000;10:131–135
  23. McMahon CA, Gibson F, Leslie G, et al. Embryo donation for medical research: attitudes and concerns of potential donors. Hum. Reprod. 2003;18:871–877
  24. Muhr, T., 1997. ATLAS/ti, ‘User’s manual and reference’. Version 4.1. Scientific Software Development Berlin, Germany.
  25. Nachtigall RD, Becker G, Friese C, et al. Parents’ conceptualization of their frozen embryos complicates the disposition decision. Fertil. Steril. 2005;84:431–434
  26. Newton CR, McDermid A, Tekpetey F, et al. Embryo donation: attitudes toward donation procedures and factors predicting willingness to donate. Hum. Reprod. 2003;18:878–884
  27. O’Neill O. Some limits of informed consent. J. Med. Ethics. 2003;29:4–7
  28. Osborn M, Smith JA. Living with a body separated from the self. The experience of the body in chronic benign low back pain: an interpretative phenomenological analysis. Scand. J. Caring Sci. 2006;20:216–222
  29. Parry S. (Re)constructing embryos in stem cell research: exploring the meaning of embryos for people involved in fertility treatments. Soc. Sci. Med. 2006;62:2349–2359
  30. Pennings G. The ethics of using embryos in research. Reprod. Biomed. Online. 2007;14(s1):92–97
  31. Pennings G. Decision-making authority of patients and fertility specialists in Belgian law. Reprod. Biomed. Online. 2007;15:19–23
  32. Pfeffer N. What British women say matters to them about donating an aborted fetus to stem cell research. Soc. Sci. Med. 2008;66:2544–2554
  33. Provoost V, Pennings G, De Sutter P, et al. Infertility patients’ beliefs about their embryos and their disposition preferences. Hum. Reprod. 2009;24:896–905
  34. Todorova ILG, Kotzeva T. Contextual shifts in Bulgarian woman’s identity in the face of infertility. Psychol. Health. 2006;21:123–141
  35. Turner AJ, Coyle A. What does it mean to be a donor offspring? The identity experiences of adults conceived by donor insemination and the implications for counselling and therapy. Hum. Reprod. 2000;15:2041–2051
  36. van Rooij FB, van Balen F, Hermanns JM. The experiences of involuntarily childless Turkish immigrants in the Netherlands. Qual. Health Res. 2009;19:621–632
  37. Wadman M. Still strict on stem cells. Nature. 2009;458:950–951
  38. Wendler D, Emanuel E. The debate over research on stored biological samples. Arch. Intern. Med. 2002;162:1457–1462
  39. Wilkes S, Hall N, Crosland A, Murdoch A, Rubin G. Patient experience of infertility management in primary care: an in-depth interview study. Fam. Pract. 2009;26:309–316

 Veerle Provoost has a Master’s degree in Philosophy and in Gerontology and a PhD in Social Health Sciences. Since October 2005, she has been affiliated as a researcher to the Department of Philosophy and Moral Sciences at Ghent University and the Bioethics Institute Ghent where she studies patients’ disposition decisions regarding surplus cryopreserved embryos. Since October 2006, she is a postdoctoral fellow of the research foundation – Flanders (FWO). Her research interests centre on empirical bioethics in the field of reproductive medicine.

PII: S1472-6483(10)00134-3

doi: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2010.03.009

Reproductive BioMedicine Online
Volume 20, Issue 7 , Pages 880-891 , June 2010

Article Tools