Embryo donation and understanding of kinship: The impact of law and policy

Millbank, J; Stuhmcke, A; Karpin, I

Embryo donation and understanding of kinship: The impact of law and policy

Millbank, J

Stuhmcke, A

Karpin, I

Permalink

Publication Type:: Journal Article
Citation:: Human Reproduction, 2017, 32 (1), pp. 133 - 138
Issue Date:: 2017-01-01

Open Access

Copyright Clearance Process

Recently Added
In Progress
Open Access

This item is open access.

Download Published VersionAdobe PDF (130.94 kB)

View on publisher's site

View statistics

Full metadata record

Field	Value	Language
dc.contributor.author	Millbank, J https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8934-7945	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Stuhmcke, A https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3679-7301	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Karpin, I https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9326-3421	en_US
dc.date.available	2016-11-01	en_US
dc.date.issued	2017-01-01	en_US
dc.identifier.citation	Human Reproduction, 2017, 32 (1), pp. 133 - 138	en_US
dc.identifier.issn	0268-1161	en_US
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10453/67680
dc.description.abstract	© The Author 2016. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology. STUDY QUESTION What is the impact of law and policy upon the experience of embryo donation for reproductive use? SUMMARY ANSWER Access to, and experience of, embryo donation are influenced by a number of external factors including laws that impose embryo storage limits, those that frame counselling and approval requirements and allow for, or mandate, donor identity disclosure. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY To date only three qualitative studies in Australia and New Zealand have been completed on the experience of embryo donation for reproductive purposes, each with a small cohort of interviewees and divergent findings. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION Embryo donors, recipients, and would-be donors were interviewed between July 2010 and July 2012, with three additional interviews between September 2015 and September 2016, on their experiences of embryo donation. The sampling protocol had the advantage of addressing donation practices across multiple clinical sites under distinct legal frameworks. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTINGS, METHODS Participants were recruited from five Australian jurisdictions and across 11 clinical sites. Twenty-six participants were interviewed, comprising: 11 people who had donated embryos for the reproductive use of others (nine individuals and one couple), six recipients of donated embryos (four individuals and one couple) and nine individuals who had attempted to donate, or had a strong desire to donate, but had been prevented from doing so. In total, participants reported on 15 completed donation experiences; of which nine had resulted in offspring to the knowledge of the donor. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE Donors positively desired donation and did not find the decision difficult. Neither donors nor recipients saw the donation process as akin to adoption. The process and practice of donation varied considerably across different jurisdictions and clinical sites. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION Because the pool of donors and recipients is small, caution must be exercised over drawing general conclusions. Saturation was not reached on themes of counselling models and future contact. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS The differences between our findings and those of a previous study are attributable to varied legal and counselling regimes. Therefore, law and policy governing embryo storage limits, counselling protocols and identity disclosure shape the donation experience and how it is described.	en_US
dc.relation	http://purl.org/au-research/grants/arc/DP150101057
dc.relation.ispartof	Human Reproduction	en_US
dc.relation.isbasedon	10.1093/humrep/dew297	en_US
dc.subject.classification	Obstetrics & Reproductive Medicine	en_US
dc.subject.mesh	Humans	en_US
dc.subject.mesh	Embryo Disposition	en_US
dc.subject.mesh	Disclosure	en_US
dc.subject.mesh	Counseling	en_US
dc.subject.mesh	Health Policy	en_US
dc.subject.mesh	Tissue Donors	en_US
dc.subject.mesh	Australia	en_US
dc.subject.mesh	New Zealand	en_US
dc.subject.mesh	Female	en_US
dc.subject.mesh	Male	en_US
dc.subject.mesh	Transplant Recipients	en_US
dc.title	Embryo donation and understanding of kinship: The impact of law and policy	en_US
dc.type	Journal Article
utslib.citation.volume	1	en_US
utslib.citation.volume	32	en_US
utslib.for	1801 Law	en_US
utslib.for	11 Medical and Health Sciences	en_US
utslib.for	16 Studies in Human Society	en_US
pubs.embargo.period	Not known	en_US
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/e-Press
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Law
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Strength - HJ - Health Justice
utslib.copyright.status	open_access
pubs.issue	1	en_US
pubs.publication-status	Published	en_US
pubs.volume	32	en_US

Abstract:

© The Author 2016. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology. STUDY QUESTION What is the impact of law and policy upon the experience of embryo donation for reproductive use? SUMMARY ANSWER Access to, and experience of, embryo donation are influenced by a number of external factors including laws that impose embryo storage limits, those that frame counselling and approval requirements and allow for, or mandate, donor identity disclosure. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY To date only three qualitative studies in Australia and New Zealand have been completed on the experience of embryo donation for reproductive purposes, each with a small cohort of interviewees and divergent findings. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION Embryo donors, recipients, and would-be donors were interviewed between July 2010 and July 2012, with three additional interviews between September 2015 and September 2016, on their experiences of embryo donation. The sampling protocol had the advantage of addressing donation practices across multiple clinical sites under distinct legal frameworks. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTINGS, METHODS Participants were recruited from five Australian jurisdictions and across 11 clinical sites. Twenty-six participants were interviewed, comprising: 11 people who had donated embryos for the reproductive use of others (nine individuals and one couple), six recipients of donated embryos (four individuals and one couple) and nine individuals who had attempted to donate, or had a strong desire to donate, but had been prevented from doing so. In total, participants reported on 15 completed donation experiences; of which nine had resulted in offspring to the knowledge of the donor. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE Donors positively desired donation and did not find the decision difficult. Neither donors nor recipients saw the donation process as akin to adoption. The process and practice of donation varied considerably across different jurisdictions and clinical sites. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION Because the pool of donors and recipients is small, caution must be exercised over drawing general conclusions. Saturation was not reached on themes of counselling models and future contact. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS The differences between our findings and those of a previous study are attributable to varied legal and counselling regimes. Therefore, law and policy governing embryo storage limits, counselling protocols and identity disclosure shape the donation experience and how it is described.

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

http://hdl.handle.net/10453/67680