Within the expanding bioeconomy of assisted reproduction, there are limitations to providing quality informed consent for egg donation when the long-term risks remain unknown. Based on ethnographic fieldwork in Barcelona with egg donors and in vitro fertilization (IVF) professionals, in this paper, we speak of “temporal choreography” to describe how clinical practices delimit and circumscribe the information that will be offered to egg donors by positioning them in an immediate present or “temporal stasis” in which future risks of egg donation are precluded, and consideration of possible future uses or distribution of eggs is truncated. These aspects intersect with the biographical temporality of egg donors, who are mostly young and economically precarious. This choreography is essential to the commercial success of the Spanish egg donation industry, which is the largest in Europe. This article engages with the emerging interest in temporality and IVF by questioning whose bodies are positioned to anticipate risks and fertility as an act of self-care and whose are encouraged to cast aside concerns about harms in favor of short-term monetary gains.
Alkorta-IdiakezItziar. 2010. “Three Decades of Reproductive Rights: The Highs and Lows of Biomedical Innovations.” In Feminist Challenges in the Social Sciences: Gender Studies in the Basque Country, edited by EstebanMari LuzAmurrioMila, 143–58. Reno, NV: Center for Basque Studies University of Nevada UPV/EHU.
3.
Álvarez PlazaConsuelo. 2008. La búsqueda de la eterna fertilidad. Mercantilismo y altruismo en la donación de semen y óvulos. Jaén, Spain: Alcalá Grupo Editorial y Distribuidor de Libros.
4.
BachAnna SofieKroløkkeCharlotte. 2019. “Hope and Happy Futurity in the Cryotank: Biomedical Imaginaries of Ovarian Tissue Freezing.” Science as Culture29 (3): 425–49. doi: 10.1080/09505431.2019.1681953.
5.
BaldwinKylie. 2019. Egg Freezing, Fertility and Reproductive Choice: Negotiating Responsibility, Hope and Modern Motherhood, Emerald Studies in Reproduction, Culture and Society. Bingley, UK: Emerald.
6.
BaldwinKylieCulleyLorraineHudsonNickyMitchellHelene. 2019. “Running out of Time: Exploring Women’s Motivations for Social Egg Freezing.” Journal of Psychosomatic Obstetrics & Gynecology40 (2): 166–73. doi: 10.1080/0167482x.2018.1460352.
7.
BallifEdmée. 2022. “Anticipatory Regimes in Pregnancy: Cross-fertilising Reproduction and Parenting Culture Studies.” Sociology (Oxford): 3803852211074. doi: 10.1177/00380385221107492.
8.
BeesonDianeLippmanAbby. 2006. “Egg Harvesting for Stem Cell Research: Medical Risks and Ethical Problems.” Reproductive BioMedicine Online13 (4): 573–79. doi: 10.1016/S1472-6483(10)60647-5.
9.
BeskowLaura M.Hammack-AviranCatherine M.BrelsfordKathleen M.. 2020. “Developing Model Biobanking Consent Language: What Matters to Prospective Participants?” BMC Medical Research Methodology20 (1): 1–14. doi: 10.1186/s12874-020-01001-2.
10.
BeskowLaura M.WeinfurtKevin P.. 2019. “Exploring Understanding of “Understanding”: The Paradigm Case of Biobank Consent Comprehension.” The American Journal of Bioethics19 (5): 6–18. doi: 10.1080/15265161.2019.1587031.
11.
BierschenkThomas. 2019. “Postface: Anthropology, Bureaucracy and Paperwork.” Journal of Legal Anthropology3 (2): 111–19. doi: 10.3167/jla.2019.030207.
12.
BOE. 2006. Ley 14/2006, de 27 de mayo, sobre técnicas de reproduccion humana asistida (14/2006 Act, dated May 27, on techniques of assisted human reproduction). BOE - Boletín Oficial del Estado, n.° 126: 27 de mayo de 2006.
13.
BoholmAisa.. 2015. Anthropology and Risk. New York: Routledge.
BühlerNolwennJongWillemijn deYvE. NayZehnderKathrin. 2015. “Ontological Choreography as an Ethnographic Tool: Understanding the Making of Families by Reproductive Technologies in Switzerland.” Tsantsa20: 84–96.
17.
CattapanA. R.. 2016. “Good Eggs? Evaluating Consent Forms for Egg Donation.” Journal of Medical Ethics42 (7): 455–59. doi: 10.1136/medethics-2015-102964.
Degli EspostiSaraPavoneVincenzo. 2019. “Oocyte Provision as a (Quasi) Social Market: Insights from Spain.” Social Science & Medicine234: 1–9. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2019.112381.
20.
FranklinSarah. 1997. Embodied Progress: A Cultural Account of Assisted Conception. London, UK: Routledge.
21.
FranklinSarah. 2013. Biological Relatives: IVF, Stem Cells, and the Future of Kinship. Edited by Press Duke University. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
22.
FranklinSarahLockMargaret M.. 2003. Remaking Life & Death: Toward an Anthropology of the Biosciences. Santa Fe, NM: School of American Research Press.
23.
GentileKatie. 2015. The Business of Being Made: The Temporalities of Reproductive Technologies, in Psychoanalysis and Culture. London, UK: Routledge.
24.
InhornMarciaBirenbaum-CarmeliDBirgerJWestphalL. MDoyleJGleicherNMeirowDDirnfeldMSeidmanDKahaneAPatrizioP. 2018. “Elective Egg Freezing and its Underlying Socio-demography: A Binational Analysis with Global Implications.” Reproductive Biology and Endocrinology16 (1): 1–11. doi: 10.1186/s12958-018-0389-z.
25.
JainS. Lochlann. 2013. Malignant. Berkeley: University of California Press.
26.
JasanoffSheila. 1999. “The Songlines of Risk.” Environmental Values8 (2): 135–52. doi: 10.3197/096327199129341761.
27.
Jociles RubioMaría Isabel. 2020. “‘Supongo Que si Hubiera Tenido Pasta, no lo habría hecho’: Motivaciones para donar óvulos e ideología del altruismo.” In Etnografía de los Mercados Reproductivos: Actores, Instituciones y Legislaciones, edited by RivasAna MªPlazaConsuelo Álvarez, 35–93. Barcelona, Spain: Tirant lo Blanch.
28.
KalfoglouAndrea L.GellerGail. 2000. “A Follow-up Study with Oocyte Donors Exploring Their Experiences, Knowledge, and Attitudes about the Use of Their Oocytes and the Outcome of the Donation.” Fertility and Sterility74 (4): 660–67. doi: 10.1016/S0015-0282(00)01489-8.
29.
KramerW.SchneiderJ.SchultzN.. 2009. “US Oocyte Donors: A Retrospective Study of Medical and Psychosocial Issues.” Human Reproduction24 (12): 3144–49. doi: 10.1093/humrep/dep309.
30.
KroløkkeCharlotte. 2021. “For Whom Does the Clock Tick?: Male Repro-temporality in Fertility Campaigns, Scientific Literature, and Commercial Accounts.” Anthropology & Aging42 (1): 81–96.
31.
Lafuente-FunesSara. 2017. “Egg Donation in the Making: Gender, Selection and (In)Visibilities in the Spanish Bioeconomy of Reproduction.” In Bioeconomies, edited by PavoneVincenzoGovenJoanna, 253–77. Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan.
LappéMartineHeinRobbin Jeffries. 2022. “The Temporal Politics of Placenta Epigenetics: Bodies, Environments and Time.” Body & Society. doi: 10.1177/1357034X211068883.
34.
LeCompteMargaret D.SchensulJean J.. 2012. Analysis and Interpretation of Ethnographic Data: A Mixed Methods Approach. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.
35.
MajumdarAnindita. 2021. “Assisted Reproductive Technologies and the Conceptualization of Ageing in India.” Anthropology & Aging42 (1): 49–65. doi: 10.5195/aa.2021.261.
36.
MansfieldBecky. 2017. “Folded Futurity: Epigenetic Plasticity, Temporality, and New Thresholds of Fetal Life.” Science as Culture26 (3): 355–79. doi: 10.1080/09505431.2017.1294575.
37.
MarreDianaRománBeatriz SanGuerraDiana. 2018. “On Reproductive Work in Spain: Transnational Adoption, Egg Donation, Surrogacy.” Medical Anthropology37 (2): 158–73. doi: 10.1080/01459740.2017.1361947.
MatysiakAnnaSobotkaTomášVignoliDaniele. 2021. “The Great Recession and Fertility in Europe: A Sub-national Analysis.” European Journal of Population37: 29–64.
40.
MolasAnna. 2021. “Taming Egg Donors: The Production of the Egg Donation Bioeconomy in Spain.” PhD thesis, School of Social and Political Sciences, Monash University: Melbourne, Australia.
41.
MolasAnnaBestardJoan. 2017. “En Espagne, le don d’ovules entre intérêt, solidarité et précarité.” Ethnologie Française167 (3): 491–98. doi: 10.3917/ethn.173.0491.
42.
MolasAnnaWhittakerAndrea. 2021. “Beyond the Making of Altruism: Branding and Identity in Egg Donation Websites in Spain.” Biosocieties17: 320–46.
43.
MollTessa. 2022. “Six Days in Plastic: Potentiality, Normalization, and In Vitro Embryos in the Postgenomic Age.” Science, Technology, & Human Values47 (6): 1253–76. doi: 10.1177/01622439221090685.
44.
MorrisDavid. 2008. “Diabetes, Chronic Illness and the Bodily Roots of Ecstatic Temporality.” Human Studies31 (4): 399–421. doi: 10.1007/s10746-008-9104-y.
45.
NahmanMichal. 2013. Extractions: An Ethnography of Reproductive Tourism: New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
46.
NahmanMichal. 2018. “Migrant Extractability: Centring the Voices of Egg Providers in Cross-border Reproduction.” Reproductive Biomedicine & Society Online7: 82–90. doi: 10.1016/j.rbms.2018.10.020.
47.
NambergerVerena. 2019. The Reproductive Body at Work: The South African Bioeconomy of Egg Donation. Abingdon, UK; New York: Routledge.
48.
NiemiecEmiliaHowardHeidi Carmen. 2020. “Germline Genome Editing Research: What Are Gamete Donors (Not) Informed About in Consent Forms?” The CRISPR Journal3 (1): 52–63.
49.
NovasC. 2006. The Political Economy of Hope: Patients' organizations, science and biovalue. BioSocieties1(3): 289–305. DOI: 10.1017/S1745855206003024
50.
OrobitgGemmaBestardJoanSalazarCarles. 2013. “El cuerpo (re)Productivo. Interés Económico y Altruismo en las Experiencias de un Grupo de Mujeres donantes de óvulos.” Revista Andaluza de Antropología5: 91–103.
51.
PoleykettBranwyn. 2022. “Living with ‘New Diseases’ in Dakar: Embodied Time and the Emergence of Chronicity.” Body & Society. doi: 10.1177/1357034X221080132.
52.
RivasAna MaríaLoresFernandoJocilesMaría. 2019. “El anonimato y el altruismo en la donación de gametos: la producción de biocapital en la industria reproductiva.” Política y Sociedad56 (3): 623–44. doi: 10.5209/poso.60564.
53.
RoseNikolas. 2007. The Politics of Life Itself: Biomedicine, Power and Subjectivity in the Twenty-first Century. Oxford, UK: Princeton University Press.
54.
RoseNikolasNovasCarlos. 2005. “Biological Citizenship.” In Global Assemblages: Technology, Politics, and Ethics as Anthropological Problems, edited by OngAihwaCollierStephen J., 439–63. Malden, MA: MBlackwell.
55.
RyanGery W.Russell BernardH.. 2003. “Techniques to Identify Themes.” Field Methods15 (1): 85–109. doi: 10.1177/1525822X02239569.
56.
San RománBeatriz. 2020. “Waiting Too Long to Mother. Involuntary Childlessness and Assisted Reproduction in Contemporary Spain.” In Waithood: Gender, Education, and Global Delays in Marriage and Childbearing, edited by InhornMarcia C.Smith-HefnerNancy J., 339–61. New York: Berghahn.
57.
SandelowskiMargareteLaceySheryl de. 2002. “The Uses of a “Disease”: Interferility as Rhetorical Vehicle.” In Infertility Around the Globe: New Thinking on Childlessness, Gender, and Reproductive Technologies, edited by InhornM.Van BalenF., 33–51. Berkeley: California University Press.
58.
SchneiderJennifer. 2008. “Fatal Colon Cancer in a Young Egg Donor: A Physician Mother’s Call for Follow-up and Research on the Long-term Risks of Ovarian Stimulation.” Fertility and Sterility90 (5): 1–5. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2007.12.074.
59.
SchneiderJenniferLahlJenniferKramerWendy. 2017. “Long-term Breast Cancer Risk Following Ovarian Stimulation in Young Egg Donors: A Call for Follow-up, Research and Informed Consent.” Reproductive BioMedicine Online34 (5): 480–85. doi: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2017.02.003.
60.
SEF (Sociedad Española de Fertilidad). 2019. Registro Nacional de Actividad 2019. Sociedad Española de Fertilidad.
61.
SmietanaMarcinThompsonCharisTwineFrance Winddance. 2018. “Making and Breaking Families—Reading Queer Reproductions, Stratified Reproduction and Reproductive Justice Together.” Reproductive Biomedicine & Society Online. 7 : 112–30. doi: 10.1016/j.rbms.2018.11.001.
62.
SobotkaTomáš. 2017. “Childlessness in Europe: Reconstructing Long-term Trends Among Women Born in 1900–1972.” In Childlessness in Europe: Contexts, Causes, and Consequences, edited by KreyenfeldMichaelaKonietzkaDirk, 17–53. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
63.
ThompsonCharis. 2005. Making Parents: The Ontological Choreography of Reproductive Technologies, Inside Technology. Cambridge: MIT.
64.
ToberDianeGaribaldiChristinaBlairAldenBaltzellKimberly. 2021. “Alignment Between Expectations and Experiences of Egg Donors: What Does It Mean to Be Informed?” Reproductive Biomedicine & Society Online12: 1–13. doi: 10.1016/j.rbms.2020.08.003.
65.
van de WielLucy. 2020a. Freezing Fertility: Oocyte Cryopreservation and the Gender Politics of Aging, Biopolitics: Medicine, Technoscience, and Health in the Twenty-first Century Series. New York: New York University Press.
66.
van de WielLucy. 2020b. “The Speculative Turn in IVF: Egg Freezing and the Financialization of Fertility.” New Genetics and Society39 (3): 306–26. doi: 10.1080/14636778.2019.1709430.
67.
VertommenSigridPavoneVincenzoNahmanMichal. 2021. “Global Fertility Chains: An Integrative Political Economy Approach to Understanding the Reproductive Bioeconomy.” Science, Technology, & Human Values47 (1): 112–45. doi: 10.1177/0162243921996460.
68.
VlasenkoPolina. 2021. “Global Circuits of Fertility: The Political Economy of the Ukranian Ova Market.” Doctor of philosophy, Department of Anthropology, Indiana University, Bloomington.
69.
WaldbyCatherine. 2019. The Oocyte Economy: The Changing Meaning of Human Eggs. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
70.
WaldbyCathyMitchellRobert. 2006. Tissue Economies: Blood, Organs, and Cell Lines in Late Capitalism. Edited by Press Duke University. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
71.
WhittakerAndrea. 2023. “Reproductive Futures.” In A Companion to the Anthropology of Reproductive Medicine and Technology, edited by HollenCecilia Coale VanAppletonNayantara. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Blackwell.
72.
WinnerLangdon. 1986. The Whale and the Reactor: A Search for Limits in an Age of High Technology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
73.
WoodriffMollySauerMark V.KlitzmanRobert. 2014. “Advocating for Longitudinal Follow-up of the Health and Welfare of Egg Donors.” Fertility and Sterility102 (3): 662–66. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2014.05.037.
