Pregnant, donor oocyte recipient women describe their lived experience of establishing the "family lexicon"

JOGNN - Journal of Obstetric, Gynecologic, and Neonatal Nursing

Volumn 36, Issue 2, 2007, Pages 161-167

  Hershberger, Patricia E ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN   (United States)

Author keywords

Assisted reproduction; Infertility; Oocyte donation; Phenomenology; Qualitative research

Indexed keywords

EID: 33947213516     PISSN: 08842175     EISSN: 15526909     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1552-6909.2007.00128.x     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Ahuja, K. K., Mostyn, B. J., & Simons, E. G. (1997). Egg sharing and egg donation: Attitudes of British egg donors and recipients. Human Reproduction, 12, 2845-2852.
2. Applegarth, L., Goldberg, N. C., Cholst, I., McGoff, N., Fantini, D., Zellers, N, et al. (1995). Families created through ovum donation: A preliminary investigation of obstetrical outcome and psychosocial adjustment. Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics, 12, 574-580.
3. Baetens, P., Devroey, P., Camus, M., Van Steirteghem, A. C., & Ponjaert-Kristoffersen, I. (2000). Counselling couples and donors for oocyte donation: The decision to use either known or anonymous oocytes. Human Reproduction, 15, 476-484.
4. Beck, C. T. (1994). Reliability and validity issues in phenomenological research. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 16, 254-267.
5. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (1997). 1995 assisted reproductive technology success rates: National summary and fertility clinic reports. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
6. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2005). 2003 assisted reproductive technology success rates: National summary and fertility clinic reports. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
7. Colaizzi, P. F. (1978). Psychological research as the phenomenologist views it. In R. S. Valle & M. King (Eds.), Existential-phenomenological alternatives for psychology (pp. 48-71). New York: Oxford University Press.
8. Cowles, K. V. (1988). Issues in qualitative research on sensitive topics. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 10, 163-179.
9. Department of Health. (2004). Anonymity to be removed from future sperm, egg and embryo donors (reference no. 2004/0023). Retrieved February 2, 2006, from http://www.dh.gov.uk/PublicationsAndStatistics
10. Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. (2004). Informing offspring of their conception by gamete donation. Fertility and Sterility, 82, S212-S216.
11. Greenfeld, D. A., Greenfeld, D. G., Mazure, C. M., Keefe, D. L., & Olive, D. L. (1998). Do attitudes toward disclosure in donor oocyte recipients predict the use of anonymous versus directed donation? Fertility and Sterility, 70, 1009-1014.
12. Greenfeld, D. A., & Klock, S. C. (2004). Disclosure decisions among known and anonymous oocyte donation recipients. Fertility and Sterility, 81, 1565-1571.
13. Hahn, S. J., & Craft-Rosenberg, M. (2002). The disclosure decisions of parents who conceive children using donor eggs. JOGNN: Journal of Obstetric, Gynecologic, and Neonatal Nursing, 31, 283-293.
14. Hershberger, P. (2004). Recipients of oocyte donation: An integrative review. JOGNN: Journal of Obstetric, Gynecologic, and Neonatal Nursing, 33, 610-621.
15. Hershberger, P., Klock, S. C., & Barnes, R. B. (in press). Disclosure decisions among pregnant women who received donor oocytes: A phenomenological study. Fertility and Sterility.
16. Hoffman, D. L., Zellman, G. L., Fair, C. C., Mayer, J. F., Zeitz, J. G., Gibbons, W. E, et al. (2003). Cryopreserved embryos in the United States and their availability for research. Fertility and Sterility, 79, 1063-1069.
17. Husserl, E. (1962). Ideas: General introduction to pure phenomenology (W.R. Boyce Gibson, Trans.). New York: Collier-Macmillan. (Original translation published 1931)
18. Isikoglu, M., Senol, Y., Berkkanoglu, M., Ozgur, K., Donmez, L., & Stones-Abbasi, A. (2006). Public opinion regarding oocyte donation in Turkey: First data from a secular population among the Islamic world. Human Reproduction, 21, 318-328.
19. Kavanaugh, K., & Ayres, L. (1998). "Not as bad as it could have been": Assessing and mitigating harm during research interviews on sensitive topics. Research in Nursing & Health, 21, 91-97.
20. Kearney, M. H. (2001). Levels and applications of qualitative research evidence. Research in Nursing & Health, 24, 145-153.
21. Kirkland, A., Power, M., Burton, G., Baber, R., Studd, J., & Abdalla, H. (1992). Comparison of attitudes of donors and recipients to oocyte donation. Human Reproduction, 7, 355-357.
22. Klock, S. C., & Greenfeld, D. A. (2004). Parents' knowledge about the donors and their attitudes toward disclosure in oocyte donation. Human Reproduction, 19, 1575-1579.
23. Lindheim, S. R., Kavic, S., & Sauer, M. V. (2000). Understanding differences in the perception of anonymous parties: A comparison between gamete donors and their recipients. Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics, 17, 127-130.
24. Murray, C., & Golombok, S. (2003). To tell or not to tell: The decision-making process of egg-donation parents. Human Fertility, 6, 89-95.
25. Nachtigall, R. D., Becker, G., Friese, C., Butler, A., & MacDougall, K. (2005). Parents' conceptualization of their frozen embryos complicates the disposition decision. Fertility and Sterility, 84, 431-434.
26. Pettee, D., & Weckstein, L. N. (1993). A survey of parental attitudes toward oocyte donation. Human Reproduction, 8, 1963-1965.
27. Practice Committee of the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology and the Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. (2006). Guidelines on number of embryos transferred. Fertility and Sterility, 86 (Suppl. 5), S51 - -S52.
28. President's Council on Bioethics. (2004). Reproduction and responsibility: The regulation of new biotechnologies. Washington, DC: Author.
29. Rabinerson, D., Dekel, A., Orvieto, R., Feldberg, D., Simon, D., & Kaplan, B. (2002). Subsidised oocyte donation in Israel (1998-2000): Results, costs and lessons. Human Reproduction, 17, 1404-1406.
30. Schenker, J. G. (1997). Assisted reproduction practice in Europe: Legal and ethical aspects. Human Reproduction Update, 3, 173-184.
31. Siegel, J. M. (1998). Pathways to single motherhood: Sexual intercourse, adoption, and donor insemination. Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Human Services, 79, 75-82.
32. Söderström-Anttila, V. (2001). Pregnancy and child outcome after oocyte donation. Human Reproduction Update, 7, 28-32.
33. Sorrell, J. M., & Redmond, G. M. (1995). Interviews in qualitative nursing research: Differing approaches for ethnographic and phenomenological studies. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 21, 1117-1122.
34. Spiegelberg, H. (1975). Doing phenomenology. The Hague, Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff.
35. van den Akker, O. (2006). A review of family donor constructs: Current research and future directions. Human Reproduction Update, 12, 91-101.