Although in vitro fertilization (IVF) has offered hope to those struggling with infertility, it has also had some unintended consequences, including the fate of embryos that may be “surplus” to requirement following IVF treatment. The number of embryos in storage across the world is high, creating a dilemma for patients who need to make disposal decisions, as well as presenting an administrative and practical dilemma for clinics. Research has suggested that patients’ views of the status of their embryo/s may affect their disposal decisions, and yet the nature of the links between views of the embryo and decisions to either donate or discard remain unclear. In this article, we engage in a discursive analysis of literature on disposal decisions. We discuss the range of ways in which embryos may be constructed, and demonstrate how these discourses make available or constrain particular action possibilities, and offer particular subject positions for patients. The analysis highlights the complexity of the relationship between embryo status and decision making, and may assist clinicians in supporting and guiding patients’ decisions.
AllanS. (2010). Submission to the senate committee inquiry into donor conception, access to genetic information and donor identification. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/10536/DRO/DU:30034784
2.
AndersonM. L. (2006). Are you my mommy? A call for regulation of embryo donation. Capital University Law Review, 35, 589–627.
3.
BangsbøllS.PinborgA.AndersenC. Y.AndersenA. N. (2004). Patients’ attitudes towards donation of surplus cryopreserved embryos for treatment or research. Human Reproduction, 19, 2415–2419. doi:10.1093/humrep/deh441
4.
BankowskiB. J.LyerlyA. D.FadenR. R.WallachE. E. (2005). The social implications of embryo cryopreservation. Fertility and Sterility, 84, 823–832. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2005.02.057
5.
BennettB. (2000). The human embryo as property? Cryopreservation and the challenges for the law. Journal of Law and Medicine, 7, 434–441.
6.
BlythE.FrithL.PaulM. S.BergerR. (2011). Embryo relinquishment for family building: How should it be conceptualised?International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family, 25, 260–285. doi:10.1093/lawfam/ebr003
7.
BrzyskiR. G. (1998). Efficacy of postal communication with patients who have cryopreserved pre-embryos. Fertility and Sterility, 70, 949–951. doi:10.1016/S0015-0282(98)00311-2
8.
BrzyskiR. G.BinkleyP. A.PierceJ. D.EddyC. A. (2000). Impact of implementation of an embryo storage fee on embryo disposal activity. Fertility and Sterility, 74, 813–815. doi:10.1016/S0015-0282(00)00714-7
9.
BurrV. (2003). Social constructionism (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.
10.
BurtonP. J.SandersK. S. (2004). Patient attitudes to donation of embryos for research in Western Australia. Medical Journal of Australia, 180, 559–561. Available from https://www.mja.com.au/
11.
CattapanA.BaylisF. (2015). Frozen in perpetuity: “Abandoned embryos” in Canada. Reproductive Biomedicine & Society Online, 1, 104–112. doi:10.1016/j.rbms.2016.04.002
12.
CattoliM.BoriniA.BonuM. A. (2004). Fate of stored embryos: Our 10 years experience. European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology, 115(Suppl. 1), S16–S18. doi:10.1016/j.ejogrb.2004.01.008
13.
CollardC.KashmeriS. (2011). Embryo adoption: Emergent forms of siblingship among Snowflakes® families. American Ethnologist, 38, 307–322. doi:10.1111/j.1548-1425.2011.01308.x
14.
de LaceyS. (2005). Parent identity and “virtual” children: Why patients discard rather than donate unused embryos. Human Reproduction, 20, 1661–1669. doi:10.1093/humrep/deh831
15.
de LaceyS. (2007a). Decisions for the fate of frozen embryos: Fresh insights into patients’ thinking and their rationales for donating or discarding embryos. Human Reproduction, 22, 1751–1758. doi:10.1093/humrep/dem056
16.
de LaceyS. (2007b). Patients’ attitudes to their embryos and their destiny: Social conditioning. Best Practice & Research: Clinical Obstetrics & Gynaecology, 21, 101–112. doi:10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2006.08.003
17.
de LaceyS. (2013). Decision making about frozen supernumerary human embryos. Human Fertility, 16, 31–34. doi:10.3109/14647273.2013.770173
18.
de LaceySNormanR. J. (2004). What should we do with donated embryos that may be genetically affected?Human Reproduction, 19, 1065–1068. doi:10.1093/humrep/deh225
19.
de LaceyS.RogersW.Braunack-MayerA.AveryJ.SmithD.RichardsB. (2012). Perceptions of embryo status and embryo use in an Australian community. Reproductive BioMedicine Online, 24, 727–744. doi:10.1016/j.rbmo.2012.01.014
20.
de LaceyS.RogersW.RichardsB. (2010). Directed embryo donation: Free choice or discrimination?Journal of Law and Medicine, 18(1), 169–177.
21.
ElfordK.LawrenceC.LeaderA. (2004). Research implications of embryo cryopreservation choices made by patients undergoing in vitro fertilization. Fertility and Sterility, 81, 1154–1155. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2003.08.048
Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. (2009). American Society for Reproductive Medicine: Defining embryo donation. Fertility and Sterility, 92, 1818–1819. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2009.10.026
24.
EydouxP.ThepotF.FellmannF.FrancannetC.Simon-BouyB.JouannetP., . . . the Commission de Genetique de la Federation Francaise des Cecos. (2004). How can the genetic risks of embryo donation be minimized? Proposed guidelines of the French Federation of CECOS (Centre d’Etude et de Conservation des Oeufs et du Sperme). Human Reproduction, 19, 1685–1688. doi:10.1093/humrep/deh328
25.
FranklinS. (2006). Embryonic economies: The double reproductive value of stem cells. BioSocieties, 1, 71–90. doi:10.1017/S1745855205040081
26.
FrithL.BlythE. (2013). They can’t have my embryo: The ethics of conditional embryo donation. Bioethics, 27, 317–324. doi:10.1111/bioe.12034
27.
FrithL.BlythE.PaulM. S.BergerR. (2011). Conditional embryo relinquishment: Choosing to relinquish embryos for family-building through a Christian embryo “adoption” programme. Human Reproduction, 26, 3327–3338. doi:10.1093/humrep/der313
28.
FuscaldoG.RussellS.GillamL. (2007). How to facilitate decisions about surplus embryos: Patients’ views. Human Reproduction, 22, 3129–3138. doi:10.1093/humrep/dem325
29.
GleicherN. (2005). Reflections and comments on regulations of biotechnologies that touch the beginning of human life. Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics, 22, 41–46. doi:10.1007/s10815-005-0820-1
30.
GoedekeS. (2014). Understandings and experiences of embryo donation in New Zealand—A discursive analysis (Unpublished doctoral thesis). Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand.
31.
GoedekeS.DanielsK. (2016). The discourse of gifting in embryo donation: The understandings of donors, recipients and counselors. Qualitative Health Research. Advance online publication, 1–10. doi:10.1177/1049732316672646
32.
GoedekeS.DanielsK.ThorpeM.du PreezE. (2015). Building extended families through embryo donation: The experiences of donors and recipients. Human Reproduction, 30, 2340–2350. doi:10.1093/humrep/dev189.
33.
GoedekeS.PayneD. (2009). Embryo donation in New Zealand: A pilot study. Human Reproduction, 24, 1939–1945. doi:10.1093/humrep/dep116
34.
GornyJ. R. (2004). The fate of surplus cryopreserved embryos: What is the superior alternative for their disposition. Suffolk University Law Review, 37, 459–478. Retrieved from http://suffolklawreview.org/gorny-cryopreserved-embryos/
35.
HammarbergK.JohnsonL.PetrilloT. (2011). Gamete and embryo donation and surrogacy in Australia: The social context and regulatory framework. International Journal of Fertility & Sterility, 4, 176–183. Available from http://www.ijfs.ir
36.
HammarbergK.TinneyL. (2006). Deciding the fate of supernumerary frozen embryos: A survey of couples’ decisions and the factors influencing their choice. Fertility and Sterility, 86, 86–91. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2005.11.071
37.
HelmC. (2008). Embryo donation: Adoption in disguise? Locating embryo donation within the adoption and assisted reproductive technology frameworks (Unpublished honors thesis). University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.
38.
HengB. C. (2006). 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?Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics, 23, 381–382. doi:10.1007/s10815-006-9070-0
39.
HenriquesJ.HollwayW.UrwinC.VennC.WalkerdineV. (2005). Changing the subject: Psychology, social regulation and subjectivity. London: Taylor & Francis.
40.
HillG. A.FreemanM. R. (2011). Embryo disposition: Choices made by patients and donor oocyte recipients. Fertility and Sterility, 95, 940–943. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2010.08.002
41.
HugK. (2008). Motivation to donate or not donate surplus embryos for stem-cell research: Literature review. Fertility and Sterility, 89, 263–277. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2007.09.017
42.
JainT.MissmerS. A. (2008). Support for selling embryos among infertility patients. Fertility and Sterility, 90, 564–568. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2007.06.101
43.
JanssensP. (2009). Colouring the different phases in gamete and embryo donation. Human Reproduction, 24, 502–504. doi:10.1093/humrep/den431
44.
JinX.WangG. X.LiuS. S.LiuM.ZhangJ.ShiY. (2013). Patients’ attitudes towards the surplus frozen embryos in China. Biomed Research International, 2013, 1–8. doi:10.1155/2013/934567
45.
JohnsonN. D. (2003). Excess embryos: Is embryo adoption a new solution or a temporary fix?Brooklyn Law Review, 68, 853–883.
46.
KatoM.Sleeboom-FaulknerM. (2011). Meanings of the embryo in Japan: Narratives of IVF experience and embryo ownership IVF experience and embryo ownership in Japan. Sociology of Health & Illness, 33, 434–447. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9566.2010.01282.x
47.
KirkmanM. (2003a). Egg and embryo donation and the meaning of motherhood. Women and Health, 38(2), 1–18. doi:10.1300/J013v38n02_01
48.
KirkmanM. (2003b). Infertile women and the narrative work of mourning: Barriers to the revision of autobiographical narratives of motherhood. Narrative Inquiry, 13, 243–262. doi:10.1075/ni.13.1.09kir
49.
KlitzmanR. (2012). Ethics for reproductive donation. In RichardsM.PenningsG.ApplebyJ. B. (Eds.), Reproductive donation: Practice, policy and bioethics (pp. 30–50). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
50.
KlockS. C.SheininS.KazerR. R. (2001). The disposition of unused frozen embryos. The New England Journal of Medicine, 345, 69–70. doi:10.1056/NEJM200107053450118
51.
KronesT.NeuwohnerE.BockK.ManolopoulosK.TinnebergH. R.RichterG. (2006). Ethics, social, legal, counselling: Attitudes of patients, healthcare professionals and ethicists towards embryonic stem cell research and donation of gametes and embryos in Germany. Reproductive BioMedicine Online, 13, 607–617. doi:10.1016/S1472-6483(10)60650-5
52.
LanzendorfS. E.RattsV. S.KellerS.OdemR. R. (2010). Disposition of cryopreserved embryos by infertility patients desiring to discontinue storage. Fertility and Sterility, 93, 486–489. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2009.02.001
53.
LarijaniB.ZahediF. (2007). Ethical and religious aspects of gamete and embryo donation and legislation in Iran. Journal of Religion & Health, 46, 399–408.
54.
LornageJ.ChorierH.BoulieuD.MathieuC.CzybaJ. C. (1995). Six year follow up of cryopreserved embryos. Human Reproduction, 10, 2610–2616. Available from http://humrep.oxfordjournals.org/
55.
LunaM.BoadaM.AranB.CoroleuB.BarriP. N.VeigaA. (2009). Couples’ opinions regarding the fate of surplus frozen embryos. Reproductive BioMedicine Online, 19(Suppl. 2), S11–S15. Available from http://www.rbmonline.com
56.
LyerlyA. D.SteinhauserK.NameyE.TulskyJ. A.Cook-DeeganR.SugarmanJ.. . . WallachE. (2006). Factors that affect infertility patients’ decisions about disposition of frozen embryos. Fertility and Sterility, 85, 1623–1630. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2005.11.056
57.
LyerlyA. D.SteinhauserK.VoilsC.NameyE.AlexanderC.BankowskiB.. . . WallachE. (2010). Fertility patients’ views about frozen embryo disposition: Results of a multi-institutional U.S. survey. Fertility and Sterility, 93, 499–509. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2008.10.015
58.
MacCallumF.WiddowsH. (2012). Ethical issues in embryo donation. In RichardsM.PenningsG.ApplebyJ. B. (Eds.), Reproductive donation: Practice, policy and bioethics (pp. 270–288). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
59.
McMahonC. A.GibsonF. L.CohenJ.LeslieG. I.TennantC. C.SaundersD. M. (2000). Mothers conceiving through in vitro fertilization: Siblings, setbacks, and embryo dilemmas after five years. Reproductive Technologies, 10, 131–135.
60.
McMahonC. A.GibsonF. L.LeslieG. I.SaundersD. M.PorterK. A.TennantC. C. (2003). Embryo donation for medical research: Attitudes and concerns of potential donors. Human Reproduction, 18, 871–877. doi:10.1093/humrep/deg167
61.
McMahonC. A.SaundersD. M. (2007). Attitudes of couples with stored frozen embryos toward conditional embryo donation. Fertility and Sterility, 91, 140–147. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2007.08.004
62.
MelamedR. M.De Sousa BonettiT. C.BragaD. P.MadaschiC.IaconelliA.BorgesE. (2009). Deciding the fate of supernumerary frozen embryos: Parents’ choices. Human Fertility, 12, 185–190. doi:10.3109/14647270903377186
63.
MichelleC. (2006). Transgressive technologies? Strategies of discursive containment in the representation and regulation of assisted reproductive technologies in Aotearoa/New Zealand. Women’s Studies International Forum, 29, 109–124. doi:10.1016/j.wsif.2006.03.009
Mohler-KuoM.ZellwegerU.DuranA.HohlM. K.GutzwillerF.MutschM. (2009). Attitudes of couples towards the destination of surplus embryos: Results among couples with cryopreserved embryos in Switzerland. Human Reproduction, 24, 1930–1938. doi:10.1093/humrep/dep103
66.
NachtigallR. D.BeckerG.FrieseC.ButlerA.MacDougallK. (2005). Parents’ conceptualization of their frozen embryos complicates the disposition decision. Fertility and Sterility, 84, 431–434. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2005.01.134
67.
NachtigallR. D.MacDougallK.LeeM.HarringtonJ.BeckerG. (2010). What do patients want? Expectations and perceptions of IVF clinic information and support regarding frozen embryo disposition. Fertility and Sterility, 94, 2069–2072. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2010.02.023
68.
NewtonC. R.FisherJ. R. W.FeylesV.TekpeteyF.HughesL.IsacssonD. (2007). Changes in patient preferences in the disposal of cryopreserved embryos. Human Reproduction, 22, 3124–3128. doi:10.1093/humrep/dem287
69.
O’BrienM. (2010). Intersection of ethics and law: The frozen embryo dilemma and the chilling choice between life and death. Whittier Law Review, 32, 171–196. Available from http://heinonline.org
70.
OghoetuomaJ. O.McKeatingC.HorneG.BrisonD. R.LiebermannB. A. (2000). Use of in-vitro fertilisation embryos cryopreserved for 5 years or more. The Lancet, 355, 1336. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(00)02122-X
ParkerI. (2005). Qualitative psychology: Introducing radical research. Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press.
73.
ParryS. (2006). (Re)constructing embryos in stem cell research: Exploring the meaning of embryos for people involved in fertility treatments. Social Science & Medicine, 62, 2349–2359. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2005.10.024
74.
PaulM. S.BergerR.BlythE.FrithL. (2010). Relinquishing frozen embryos for conception by infertile couples. Families, Systems, & Health, 28, 258–273. doi:10.1037/a0020002
75.
PenningsG. (2000). What are the ownership rights for gametes and embryos? Advance directives and the disposition of cryopreserved gametes and embryos. Human Reproduction, 15, 979–986. doi:10.1093/humrep/15.5.979
76.
ProvoostV.PenningsG.De SutterP.GerrisJ.VandeVeldeA.De LissnyderE.DhontM. (2009). Infertility patients’ beliefs about their embryos and their disposition preferences. Human Reproduction, 24, 896–905. doi:10.1093/humrep/den486
77.
ProvoostV.PenningsG.De SutterP.GerrisJ.VandeVeldeA.DhontM. (2010). Patients’ conceptualization of cryopreserved embryos used in their fertility treatment. Human Reproduction, 25, 705–713. doi:10.1093/humrep/dep387
78.
ProvoostV.PenningsG.De SutterP.GerrisJ.VandeVeldeA.DhontM. (2011). To continue or discontinue storage of cryopreserved embryos? Patients’ decisions in view of their child wish. Human Reproduction, 26, 861–872. doi:10.1093/humrep/deq392
79.
ProvoostV.PenningsG.De SutterP.VandeVeldeA.DhontM. (2012). Trends in embryo disposition decisions: Patients’ responses to a 15-year mailing program. Human Reproduction, 27, 506–514. doi:10.1093/humrep/der419
80.
SmytheE.SpenceD. (2012). Re-viewing literature in hermeneutic research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 11, 12–24.
81.
Söderström-AnttilaV.FoudilaT.RipattiU.-R.SiegbergR. (2001). Embryo donation: Outcome and attitudes among embryo donors and recipients. Human Reproduction, 16, 1120–1128. doi:10.1093/humrep/16.6.1120
82.
StielM.McMahonC. A.ElwynG.BoivinJ. (2010). Pre-birth characteristics and 5-year follow-up of women with cryopreserved embryos after successful in vitro fertilisation treatment. Journal of Psychosomatic Obstetrics and Gynecology, 31, 32–39. doi:10.3109/01674820903537081
83.
SvanbergA. S.BoivinJ.BerghT. (2001). Factors influencing the decision to use or discard cryopreserved embryos. Acta Obstetrica et Gynecologica Scandinavia, 80, 849–855. doi:10.1034/j.1600-0412.2001.080009849.x
84.
SvendsenM. N. (2007). Between reproductive and regenerative medicine: Practising embryo donation and civil responsibility in Denmark. Body & Society, 13(4), 21–45. doi:10.1177/1357034X07087098
WalshA. P. H.TsarO. M.WalshD. J.BaldwinP. M.ShkrobotL. V.SillsE. S. (2010). Who abandons embryos after IVF?Irish Medical Journal, 103, 107–110. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/10147/107602
87.
WanggrenK.PragF.Skoog SvanbergA. (2013). Attitudes towards embryo donation in Swedish women and men of reproductive age. Upsala Journal of Medical Sciences, 118, 187–195. doi:10.3109/03009734.2013.808294
88.
WiddowsH.MacCallumF. (2002). Disparities in parenting criteria: An exploration of the issues, focusing on adoption and embryo donation. Journal of Medical Ethics, 28, 139–142. doi:10.1136/jme.28.3.139
89.
WilligC. (2010). Introducing qualitative research in psychology (2nd ed.). Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press.
