Embryo donation in New Zealand: A pilot study

Human Reproduction

Volumn 24, Issue 8, 2009, Pages 1939-1945

  Goedeke, Sonja ^a   Payne, Deborah ^a  

^a AUCKLAND UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (New Zealand)

Author keywords

Decision making; Discarding embryos; Embryo donation; Frozen embryo; Genetic lineage

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; DECISION MAKING; HUMAN; INTERVIEW; MEDICAL PRACTICE; NEW ZEALAND; OOCYTE DONATION; PRACTICE GUIDELINE;

EID: 67651123050     PISSN: 02681161     EISSN: 14602350     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/humrep/dep116     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Advisory Committee on Assisted Reproductive Technology (ACART). Use of gametes and embryos in human reproductive research. http:// www.acart.health. govt.nz (retrieved 24 November 2007).
2. Advisory Committee on Assisted Reproductive Technology (ACART). Annual Report 2007-2008: Including the 2007/08 Annual Report of the Ethics Committee on Assisted Reproductive Technology. Wellington: Advisory Committee on Assisted Reproductive Technology.
3. Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol 2006;3:77-101.
4. Cattoli M, Borini A, Bonu M. Fate of stored embryos: our 10 years experience. Eur J Obstet Gynecol 2004;115S:16-18.
5. Coney S. The rights and interests of the child. In: Coney S, Else A (eds). Protecting Our Future: The Case for Greater Regulation of Assisted Reproductive Technology. Auckland: Women's Health Action Trust, 1999.
6. Daniels K. Is blood really thicker than water? Assisted reproduction and its impact on our thinking about family. J Psychosom Obstet Gynaecol 2005; 26:265-270.
7. Daniels K, Taylor K. Secrecy and openness in donor insemination. Politics Life Sci 1993;12:155-170.
8. De Lacey S. Parent identity and 'virtual' children: why patients discard rather than donate unused embryos. Hum Reprod 2005; 20:1661-1669.
9. De Lacey S. Parent identity and 'virtual' children: why patients discard rather than donate unused embryos. Hum Reprod 2005; 20:1661-1669.
10. Douthett M, Bennett S. A Pacific perspective on assisted reproductive technologies. In: Coney S, Else A (eds). Protecting Our Future: The Case for Greater Regulation of Assisted Reproductive Technology. Auckland: Women's Health Action Trust, 1999.
11. Else A. Longer term issues: information, access, truth, openness and contact. In: Coney S, Else A (eds). Protecting Our Future: The Case for Greater Regulation Of Assisted Reproductive Technology. Auckland: Women's Health Action Trust, 1999.
12. Fuscaldo G, Savulescu J. Spare embryos: 3000 reasons to rethink the significance of genetic relatedness. Reprod BioMed Online 2005; 10:164-168.
13. Glover M, Rousseau B. 'Your child is your whakapapa': Maori considerations of assisted human reproduction and relatedness. SITES: New Series 2007;4:117-135.
14. Hammerberg K, Tinney L. Deciding the fate of supernumerary frozen embryos: a survey of couples decisions and the factors influencing their choice. Fertil Steril 2006;86:86-91.
15. Hoffman D, Zellman G, Fair C, Mayer J, Zeitz J, Gibbons W, Turner T. Cryopreserved embryos in the United States and their availability for research. Fertil Steril 2003;79:1063-1069.
16. Hurst T, Lancaster P. Assisted conception in Australia and New Zealand 1999 and 2000. AIHW Cat. No PER18. Assisted Conception Series, Vol. 6. Sydney: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare National Perinatal Statistic Unit, 2001.
17. Kirkman M. Egg and embryo donation and the meaning of motherhood. Women and Health 2003;38:1-18.
18. Kovacs G, Breheny S, Dear M. Embryo donation at an Australian university in-vitro-fertilisation clinic: issues and outcomes. Med J Aust 2003; 178:127-129.
19. Laruelle C, Englert Y. Psychological study of in vitro fertilisation-embryo transfer participants' attitudes towards the destiny of their supernumerary embryos. Fertil Steril 1995;63:1047-1050.
20. Lyerly A, Brelsford E, Bankowski E, Faden R,Wallach E. A qualitative study of individuals attitudes regarding their cryopreserved embryos. Int Congr Ser 2004;1271:353-356.
21. McMahon C, Gibson F, Cohen J, Leslie G, Tennant C, Saunders D. Mothers conceiving through IVF: siblings, setbacks and embryo dilemmas after five years. Reprod Technol 2000;10:131-135.
22. McMahon C, Gibson F, Leslie G, Saunders D, Porter K, Tennant C. Embryo donation for medical research: attitudes and concern of potential donors. Hum Reprod 2003;18:871-877.
23. Nachtigall R, Becker G, Friese C, Butler A, MacDougall K. Parents' conceptualization of their frozen embryos complicates the disposition decision. Fertil Steril 2005;84:431-434.
24. National Ethics Committee on Assisted Human Reproduction. Guidelines on Embryo Donation for Reproductive Purposes. http://www.newhealth .govt.nz/ecart/guidelines.htm (2005; retrieved 26 August 2006).
25. New Zealand Parliamentary Council Office. Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Act 2004. http://www.legislation.govt.nz (reprint as at 24 January 2009; retrieved 09 February 2009).
26. Newton C, McDermid A, Tekpetey F, Tummon I. Embryo donation: attitudes toward donation procedures and factors predicting willingness to donate. Hum Reprod 2003;18:878-884.
27. Oghoetuoma J, McKeating C, Horne G, Brison D, Lieberman B. Use of in vitro fertilisation embryos cryopreserved for 5 years or more. Lancet 2000;355:1336.
28. Pope C, Mays N. Qualitative Research in Health Care, 3rd edn. Massachusetts: Blackwell, 2006.
29. Rockel J, Ryburn M. Adoption today. Change and Choice in New Zealand. Auckland: Heinemann Reed, 1988.
30. Sö derströ m-Anttila V, Fudila T, Ripatti U, Sieberg R. Embryo donation: outcome and attitudes among embryo donors and recipients. Hum Reprod 2001;16:1120-1128.