Skip to main content

‘It’s Not Just About Having Babies’: A Socio-bioethical Exploration of Older Women’s Experiences of Making Oncofertility Decisions in Britain

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Philosophies and Sociologies of Bioethics

Abstract

This article discusses how research in bioethics can be conducted through a sociological lens, using not only methods, but social and sociological theory and methodology to reflect on those bioethics theories that currently inform policy and practice in the healthcare setting. Using selected findings from a research project investigating the experiences of British premenopausal cancer patients making decisions to undergo fertility damaging cancer treatments, this chapter provides a case study of how sociology is an important field to include in the interdisciplinary field of bioethics. The results from interviews with cancer survivors showed that older premenopausal women (aged 35–50) attach importance to their fertility status for non-childbearing reasons. Participants felt that their healthcare professionals made assumptions about their fertility/ovarian preservation needs, which kept participants from making fully informed decisions about their cancer treatments. This research uses the experience of older oncofertility patients to highlight the need to address the persistent lack of effective communication between healthcare professionals and patients about oncofertility options, in order to better support autonomous, informed decision-making in the clinical context.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 69.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    Corney and Swinglehurst’s (2014) research adds to the growing body of literature on the experiences of British female patients, arguing that these patients require more detailed information on FP, and an in-depth explanation of whether they, as individual patients, are eligible or not to attempt FP before cancer treatment.

  2. 2.

    All participant names and identifying details have been changed to protect anonymity.

References

  • Annandale, E. 1998. The Sociology of Health and Medicine: A Critical Introduction. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anspach, R.R. (1993). Deciding Who Lives: Fateful Choices in the Intensive Care Nursery. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Attride-Stirling, J. 2001. Thematic Networks: An Analytical Tool for Qualitative Research. Qualitative Research 1: 385–405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beauchamp, T.L., and J.F. Childress. 2009. Principles of Biomedical Ethics. 6th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borry, P., P. Shotsmans, and K. Dierickx. 2005. The Birth of the Empirical Turn in Bioethics. Bioethics 19 (1): 49–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brewer, J. 2000. Ethnography. Buckingham: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • British Fertility Society. 2003. A Strategy for Fertility Services for Survivors of Childhood Cancer. Human Fertility 6: A1–A40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cancer Research UK. 2014. All Cancers Combined Key Facts. Retrieved from http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/cancer-info/cancerstats/keyfacts/Allcancerscombined/. Accessed 8 Sept 2014.

  • Charles, C., A. Gafni, and T. Whelan. 1997. Shared Decision-Making in the Medical Encounter: What Does It Mean? (or It Takes At Least Two to Tango). Social Science and Medicine 44 (5): 681–692.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Charles, C., C. Redko, T. Whelan, A. Gafni, and L. Reyno. 1998. Doing Nothing Is No Choice: Lay Constructions of Treatment Decision-Making Among Women with Early-Stage Breast Cancer. Sociology of Health & Illness 20 (1): 71–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Charles, C., A. Gafni, and T. Whelan. 1999. Decision-Making in the Physician-Patient Encounter: Revisiting the Shared Treatment Decision-Making Model. Social Science and Medicine 49: 651–661.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Charmaz, K. 2006. Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Corney, R.H., and A.J. Swinglehurst. 2014. Young childless women with breast cancer in the UK: a qualitative study of their fertility‐related experiences, options, and the information given by health professionals. Psycho-Oncology 23: 20–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cope, D. 2002. Patients’ and Physicians’ Experiences with Sperm Banking and Infertility Issues Related to Cancer Treatment. Clinical Journal of Oncology Nursing 6 (5): 293–295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Corrigan, O. 2003. Empty Ethics: The Problem with Informed Consent. Sociology of Health & Illness 25: 768–792.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crawshaw, M., A. Glaser, J. Hale, and P. Sloper. 2009. Male and Female Experiences of Having Fertility Matters Raised Alongside a Cancer Diagnosis During the Teenage and Young Adult Years. European Journal of Cancer Care 18: 381–390.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Emanuel, E.J., and L.L. Emanuel. 1992. Four Models of the Physician-Patient Relationship. The Journal of the American Medical Association 267 (16): 2221–2229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frith, L. 2012. Symbiotic Empirical Ethics: A Practical Methodology. Bioethics 26 (4): 198–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frongillo, M., S. Feibelmann, J. Belkora, C. Lee, and K. Sepucha. 2013. Is There Shared Decision Making When the Provider Makes a Recommendation? Patient Education and Counselling 90: 69–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodwin, T., B.E. Oosterhuis, M. Kiernan, M.M. Hudson, and G.V. Dahl. 2007. Attitudes and Practices of Pediatric Oncology Providers Regarding Fertility Issues. Pediatric Blood Cancer 48: 80–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haimes, E. 2002. What Can the Social Sciences Contribute to the Study of Ethics? Theoretical, Empirical and Substantive Considerations. Bioethics 16 (2): 89–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haimes, E., and K. Taylor. 2013. What Is the Role of Reduced IVF Fees in Persuading Women to Volunteer to Provide Eggs for Research? Insights from IVF Patients Volunteering to a UK ‘Egg Sharing for Research’ Scheme. Human Fertility 16 (4): 246–251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haimes, E., and R. Williams. 2007. Sociology, Ethics and the Priority of the Particular: Learning from a Case Study of Genetic Deliberation. British Journal of Sociology 58 (3): 457–476.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hedgecoe, A. 2004. Critical Bioethics: Beyond the Social Science Critique of Applied Ethics. Bioethics 18 (2): 120–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoffmaster, B., ed. 2001. Bioethics in social context. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, J., A.M. Deal, U. Balthazar, L.A. Kondapalli, C. Gracia, and J.E. Mersereau. 2013. Fertility Preservation Consultation for Women with Cancer: Are We Helping Patients Make High-Quality Decisions? Reproductive Biomedicine Online 27: 96–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Letourneau, J.M., E.E. Ebbel, P.P. Katz, K.H. Oktay, C.E. McCulloch, W.Z. Ai, A.J. Chien, M.E. Melisko, M.I. Cedars, and M.P. Rosen. 2012. Acute Ovarian Failure Underestimates Age-Specific Reproductive Impairment for Young Women Undergoing Chemotherapy for Cancer. Cancer 118 (7): 1933–1939.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loren, A.W., P.B. Mangu, L.N. Beck, L. Brennan, A.J. Magdalinski, A.H. Partridge, G. Quinn, W.H. Wallace, and K. Oktay. 2013. Fertility Preservation for Patients with Cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guidelines Update. Journal of Clinical Oncology 31 (19): 2500–2510.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mackenzie, C., and N. Stoljar. 2000. Relational Autonomy: Feminist Perspectives on Autonomy, Agency and the Social Self. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mason, J. 2002. Qualitative Researching. 2nd ed. London: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • McMullen, L.M. 2012. Discourses of Influence and Autonomy in Physicians’ Accounts of Treatment Decision Making for Depression. Qualitative Health Research 22 (2): 238–249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morse, J.M., M. Barret, M. Mayan, K. Olsen, and J. Spiers. 2002. Verification Strategies for Establishing Reliability and Validity in Qualitative Research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods 1 (2): 13–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. 2013. Fertility: Assessment and Treatment for People with Fertility Problems. Retrieved from http://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg156/chapter/recommendations#people-with-cancer-who-wish-to-preserve-fertility. Accessed 8 Sept 2014.

  • Nettleton, S. 2013. The Sociology of Health & Illness. 3rd ed. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nisker, J., F. Baylis, and C. McLeod. 2006. Choice in Fertility Preservation in Girls and Adolescent Women with Cancer. Supplement to Cancer 107 (7): 1686–1689.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paton, A. 2017. No Longer “Handmaiden”: The Role of Social and Sociological Theory in Bioethics. IJFAB 10 (1): 30–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peddie, V., M. Porter, R. Barbour, D. Culligan, G. MacDonald, D. King, J. Horn, and S. Bhattacharya. 2012. Factors Affecting Decision Making About Fertility Preservation After Cancer Diagnosis: A Qualitative Study. BJOG 119: 1049–1057.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quinn, G.P., and S.T. Vadaparampil. 2009. Fertility Preservation and Adolescent/Young Adult Cancer Patients: Physician Communication Challenges. Journal of Adolescent Health 44: 394–400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quinn, G.P., S.T. Vadaparampil, C.K. Gwede, C.A. Miree, L.M. King, H. Clayton, C. Wilson, and P. Munster. 2007. Discussion of Fertility Preservation with Newly Diagnosed Patients: Oncologists’ Views. Journal of Cancer Survivorship 1: 146–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Royal College of Physicians, The Royal College of Radiologists, Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. 2007. The Effects of Cancer Treatment on Reproductive Functions: Guidance on Management (Report of a Working Party). London: Royal College of Physicians.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schover, L.R. 1999. Psychological Aspects of Infertility and Decisions About Reproduction in Young Cancer Survivors: A Review. Medical and Pediatric Oncology 33: 53–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schover, L.R., K. Brey, A. Lichtin, L.I. Lipshultz, and S. Jeha. 2002a. Knowledge and Experience Regarding Cancer, Infertility, and Sperm Banking in Younger Male Survivors. Journal of Clinical Oncology 20 (7): 1880–1889.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2002b. Oncologists’ Attitudes and Practices Regarding Banking Sperm Before Cancer Treatment. Journal of Clinical Oncology 20 (7): 1890–1897.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sherwin, S. 1992. No Longer Patient: Feminist Ethics and Health Care. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1998. A Relational Approach to Autonomy in Health Care. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Silverman, D. 2004. Qualitative Research: Theory, Method and Practice. London: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Siminoff, L.A., G.C. Graham, and N.H. Gordon. 2006. Cancer Communication Patterns and the Influence of Patient Characteristics: Disparities in Information-Giving and Affective Behaviours. Patient Education and Counseling 62: 355–360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Street, R.L., Jr., H. Gordon, and P. Haidet. 2007. Physicians’ Communication and Perceptions of Patients: Is It How They Look, How They Talk, or Is It Just the Doctor? Social Science and Medicine 65: 587–598.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whittemore, R., S.K. Chase, and C.L. Mandle. 2001. Validity in Qualitative Research. Qualitative Health Research 11 (4): 522–537.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilkes, S., S. Coulson, A. Crosland, G. Rubin, and J. Stewart. 2010. Experience of Fertility Preservation Among Younger People Diagnosed with Cancer. Human Fertility 13 (3): 151–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zikmund-Fisher, B., M.P. Couper, and A. Fagerlin. 2012. Disparities in Patient Reports of Communications to Inform Decision Making in the DECISIONS survey. Patient Education and Counseling 87: 198–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Declaration of Interest

The author reports no conflicts of interest. The author alone is responsible for the content and writing of the paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alexis Paton .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Paton, A. (2018). ‘It’s Not Just About Having Babies’: A Socio-bioethical Exploration of Older Women’s Experiences of Making Oncofertility Decisions in Britain. In: Riesch, H., Emmerich, N., Wainwright, S. (eds) Philosophies and Sociologies of Bioethics. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-92738-1_6

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics