4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

Attitudes of couples with stored frozen embryos toward conditional embryo donation

Journal

FERTILITY AND STERILITY
Volume 91, Issue 1, Pages 140-147

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2007.08.004

Keywords

Embryo donation; conditional; infertile couples

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To survey clients with stored frozen embryos regarding intention to donate embryos to other couples and attitudes toward conditional donation. Design: Anonymous postal questionnaire. Setting: A private IVF clinic in Sydney, Australia. Patient(s): Clients with embryos stored for 3 or more years. Intervention(s): Patients completed a survey regarding attitudes to embryo donation and conditional embryo donation. Spontaneous written comments were also analyzed. Main Outcome Measure(s): Intentions regarding embryos. attitudes toward conditional donation, extent to which conditional donation would influence decision-making. Result(s): Of the clients surveyed, 99 women (35%) and 66 men (23%) responded. Only 4% indicated it was likely they would donate to other couples; 48% thought donors should be able to specify characteristics of recipients; and 41% indicated they would be more likely to donate if donation was conditional. A sense of ownership and responsibility for the well-being of the offspring underpinned reluctance to donate. Perceived control over the caretaking environment was seen as an advantage of conditional donation. Concerns were also raised about the need for donors to relinquish control and the potential for discrimination. Conclusion(s): An empirical understanding of the views of infertility patients regarding stored embryos is critical to informing public discourse, policy debates, and clinical practice as well as counseling, policy, and protocols on embryo donation. (Fertil Steril (R) 2009;91:140-7. (c) 2009 by American Society for Reproductive Medicine.)

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available