What is to be done with surplus embryos? Attitude formation with ambivalence in German fertility patients

Reproductive BioMedicine Online

Volumn 18, Issue SUPPL. 1, 2009, Pages 68-77

  Kufner, Katharina ^a   Tonne, M ^a   Barth, J ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF FREIBURG   (Germany)

^b UNIVERSITY OF BERN   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

Ambivalence; Attitude; Counseling; Embryo; Interview; IVF

Indexed keywords

AMBIVALENCE; ARTICLE; COMMUNICATION SKILL; CULTURAL SENSITIVITY; DONOR; EMBRYO DISPOSITION; FERTILIZATION IN VITRO; GERMANY; INFORMED CONSENT; PATIENT ATTITUDE; PATIENT COUNSELING; PATIENT DECISION MAKING;

EID: 63249123270     PISSN: 14726483     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S1472-6483(10)60118-6     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Bangsboll S, Pinborg A, Yding Andersen C et al. 2004 Patients' attitudes towards donation of surplus cryopreserved embryos for treatment or research. Human Reproduction 19, 2415-2419.
2. Bankowski BJ, Lyerly AD, Faden RR et al. 2005 The social implications of embryo cryopreservation. Fertility and Sterility 84, 823-832.
3. Barns I, Schibeci R, Davison A et al. 2000 What do you think about genetic medicine? Facilitating sociable public discourse on developments in the new genetics. Science, Technology and Human Values 25, 283-308.
4. Barth J, Kufner K, Bengel J 2005 Fin klares Jein! Einstellungen und Ambivalenzen der deutschen Allgemeinbevölkerung zur Forschung mit extrakorporalen Embryonen. Ethik in der Medizin 17, 127-141.
5. Bell DW, Esses VM 2002 Ambivalence and response amplification: a motivational perspective. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 28, 1143-1152.
6. Boivin J, Scanlan LC, Walker SM 1999 Why are infertile patients not using psychosocial counselling? Human Reproduction 14, 1384-1391.
7. Burton B, Chan CLK, Puzko Z et al. 1986 Attitudes towards oocyte and embryo donation and disposal. The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics Gynaecology 26, 304-308.
8. Chapman E 2002 The social and ethical implications of changing medical technologies. The views of people living with genetic conditions. Journal of Health Psychology 7, 195-206.
9. Clark JP 2003 How to peer review a qualitative manuscript. In: Godlee F, Jefferson T (eds) Peer Review in Health Sciences. BMJ Books, London, UK, 219-235.
10. de Lacey S 2007 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.
11. Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine 2004 Informed consent and the use of gametes and embryos for research. Fertility and Sterility 82 (Suppl. 1), S251-S252.
12. Gaskell G 1997 Europe ambivalent on biotechnology. Nature 387, 845-847.
13. Geisthövel F, Frommel M, Ludwig M 2004 Aufklärung und Vereinbarungen für die In-vitro-Fertilisations-Therapie und die Kryokonservierung von Embryonen - ein Diskussionsbeitrag. Journal für Reproduktionsmedizin und Endokrinologie 4, 289-294.
14. Glaser BG, Strauss A 1967 Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Aldine Transaction, Chicago, USA.
15. Hammarberg K, Tinney L 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.
16. Hänze M 2001 Ambivalence, conflict, and decision making: Attitudes and feelings in Germany towards NATO's military intervention in the Kosovo war. European Journal of Social Psychology 31, 693-706.
17. Himmel W, Dahl F, Michelmann HW 2008 Preconception sex selection: a survey of visitors to an internet-based health forum. Reproductive BioMedicine Online 16 (Suppl. 1), 18-26.
18. Hug K 2008 Motivation to donate or not donate surplus embryos for stem-cell research: literature review. Fertility and Sterility 89, 263-277.
19. Jonas K, Broemer P, Diehl M 2000 Attitudinal ambivalence. European Review of Social Psychology 11, 35-74.
20. Jonas K, Diehl M, Broemer P 1997 Effects of attitudinal ambivalence on information processing and attitude-intention consistency. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 33, 190-210.
21. Jones BA, McMahon CA 2003 Social representations of stem cell research and preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Reproductive BioMedicine Online 7, 268-275.
22. Kerr A, Cunningham-Burley S, Amos A 1998 Drawing the line. An analysis of lay people's discussions about the new genetics. Public Understanding of Science 7, 113-133.
23. Klock SC, Sheinin S, Kazer RR 2001 The disposition of unused frozen embryos. New England Journal of Medicine 345, 69-70.
24. Krones T, Neuwohner E, Bock K et al. 2006 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.
25. Lo B, Chou V, Cedars MI et al. 2003 Consent from donors for embryo and stem cell research. Science 301, 921.
26. Luce MF 1998 Choosing to avoid: coping with negatively emotion-laden consumer decisions. Journal of Consumer Research 24, 409-433.
27. Lyerly AD, Steinhauser K, Namey E et al. 2006 Factors that affect infertility patients' decisions about disposition of frozen embryos. Fertility and Sterility 85, 1623-1630.
28. Maio GR, Esses VM, Bell DW 2000 Examining conflict between components of attitudes: ambivalence and inconsistency are distinct constructs. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science 32, 71-83.
29. McMahon CA, Gibson FL, Leslie GI et al. 2003 Embryo donation for medical research: attitudes and concerns of potential donors. Human Reproduction 18, 871-877.
30. Nachtigall RD, Becker G, Friese C et al. 2005 Parents' conceptualization of their frozen embryos complicates the disposition decision. Fertility and Sterility 84, 431-434.
31. Newton CR, McDermid A, Tekpetey F et al. 2003 Embryo donation: attitudes toward donation procedures and factors predicting willingness to donate. Human Reproduction 18, 878-884.
32. Pardo Avellaneda R 2003 Attitudes toward embryo experimentation in Europe. In: Solter D, Beyleveld D, Friele MB et al. (eds) Embryo Research in Pluralistic Europe. Springer, Berlin, Germany, pp. 157-204.
33. Parry S 2006 (Re)Constructing embryos in stem cell research. Exploring the meaning of embryos for fertility patients. Social Science and Medicine 62, 2349-2359.
34. Petty RE, Priester JR, Wegener DT 1994 Cognitive processes in attitude change. In: Wyer RS, Scrull TK (eds) Handbook of Social Cognition. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, USA, 69-142.
35. Roberts C, Franklin S 2004 Experiencing new forms of genetic choice: findings from an ethnographic study of preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Human Fertility 7, 285-293.
36. Strauss AL, Corbin J 1997 Basics of Qualitative Research. Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques. Sage, Newbury Park, CA, USA.
37. Sullivan L 1993 In the path of Daedalus: middle-class Australians' attitudes to embryo research. British Journal of Sociology 44, 271-302.
38. Svanberg AS, Boivin J, Bergh T 2001 Factors influencing the decision to use or discard cryopreserved embryos. Acta Obstetrica et Gynaecologica Skandinavica 80, 849-855.
39. Witzel A 2000 The problem-centered interview. Forum: Qualitative Social Research 1, Available at http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/1132 [accessed on 22 December 2008].