OBJECTIVE: To describe factors that affect infertility patients' decision making regarding their cryopreserved embryos. DESIGN: Forty-six semistructured in-depth interviews of individuals and couples participating in IVF programs. SETTING: Two major southeastern academic medical centers. PATIENT(S): Fifty-three individuals, including 31 women, 8 men, and 7 couples. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Qualitative analysis of interview transcripts. INTERVENTION (S): None. RESULT(S): Seven broad themes informed participants' decisions about embryo disposition: family and personal issues, trust, definition of the embryo, prospective responsibility to the embryo, responsibility to society, adequacy of information, and lack of acceptable disposition options. Many wished for alternative options, such as a ceremony at the time of disposal or placement of embryos in the woman's body when pregnancy was unlikely. CONCLUSION(S): Recent debates regarding embryo disposition do not reflect the range of values that infertility patients consider when deciding about frozen embryos. In addition to questions about the embryo's moral status, decision making about embryos is informed by a range of factors in the lives of individuals who created them. These perspectives may have important implications for the content and timing of informed consent, facilitating embryo disposition, and advancing policy debates about the ethics of frozen embryo use.
OBJECTIVE: To describe factors that affect infertilitypatients' decision making regarding their cryopreserved embryos. DESIGN: Forty-six semistructured in-depth interviews of individuals and couples participating in IVF programs. SETTING: Two major southeastern academic medical centers. PATIENT(S): Fifty-three individuals, including 31 women, 8 men, and 7 couples. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Qualitative analysis of interview transcripts. INTERVENTION (S): None. RESULT(S): Seven broad themes informed participants' decisions about embryo disposition: family and personal issues, trust, definition of the embryo, prospective responsibility to the embryo, responsibility to society, adequacy of information, and lack of acceptable disposition options. Many wished for alternative options, such as a ceremony at the time of disposal or placement of embryos in the woman's body when pregnancy was unlikely. CONCLUSION(S): Recent debates regarding embryo disposition do not reflect the range of values that infertilitypatients consider when deciding about frozen embryos. In addition to questions about the embryo's moral status, decision making about embryos is informed by a range of factors in the lives of individuals who created them. These perspectives may have important implications for the content and timing of informed consent, facilitating embryo disposition, and advancing policy debates about the ethics of frozen embryo use.
Authors: Robert D Nachtigall; Kirstin Mac Dougall; Matthew Lee; Jennifer Harrington; Gay Becker Journal: Fertil Steril Date: 2010-04-01 Impact factor: 7.329
Authors: Natalie C Spach; Elana F Jaffe; Kristen A Sullivan; Ilona T Goldfarb; Jean R Anderson; Jenell Coleman; Sappho Z Gilbert; Marielle S Gross; Lisa Rahangdale; Ruth R Faden; Anne D Lyerly Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2021-11-01 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: Robert D Nachtigall; Kirstin Mac Dougall; Jennifer Harrington; Julia Duff; Matthew Lee; Gay Becker Journal: Fertil Steril Date: 2009-08-22 Impact factor: 7.329
Authors: R Anguzu; R Cusatis; N Fergestrom; A Cooper; K D Schoyer; J B Davis; J Sandlow; K E Flynn Journal: Hum Reprod Date: 2020-03-27 Impact factor: 6.918
Authors: Anne Drapkin Lyerly; Karen Steinhauser; Corrine Voils; Emily Namey; Carolyn Alexander; Brandon Bankowski; Robert Cook-Deegan; William C Dodson; Elena Gates; Emily S Jungheim; Peter G McGovern; Evan R Myers; Barbara Osborn; William Schlaff; Jeremy Sugarman; James A Tulsky; David Walmer; Ruth R Faden; Edward Wallach Journal: Fertil Steril Date: 2008-12-05 Impact factor: 7.329