Abstract
This article develops a model of informed consent for fresh oöcyte donation for stem cell research, during in vitro fertilisation (IVF), by building on the importance of patients’ embodied experience. Informed consent typically focuses on the disclosure of material information. Yet this approach does not incorporate the embodied knowledge that patients acquire through lived experience. Drawing on interview data from 35 patients and health professionals in an IVF clinic in Australia, our study demonstrates the uncertainty of IVF treatment, and the tendency for patients to overestimate their chances of success prior to the experience of treatment. Once in active treatment, however, patients identify their oöcytes as both precious and precarious. We argue that it is necessary to formally include embodied experience as a source of knowledge in informed consent procedures, both for gratuitous donation and for egg-sharing regimes. We recommend that at least one full cycle of IVF be completed before approaching women to divert eggs away from their own fertility treatment.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Australia established the Prohibition of Human Cloning and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Act 2006, which opened the way for Australian scientists to legally utilise women’s oöcytes for SCNT. In the same year in the United Kingdom, the Human Fertlisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) enabled egg-sharing arrangements to be extended for research oöcyte donors.
One American study estimated the labour invested in donating eggs is around 56 h (Widdows 2009).
The researchers did not access the database. Instead two senior and experienced clinicians accessed the patient database and provided the contact address details of potential participants. This yielded 585 potential participants.
Participant names were first screened by the fertility clinic’s senior nurse and counsellor to ensure that participants were not in need of an English translation service (26), living in a country location (42) that made it difficult to attend a face-to-face interview, or subject to a highly traumatic IVF experience (2). Participant response rate was 7 percent.
Participants were recruited from a clinic that does not undertake oöcyte harvesting for research purposes. Participants in both cohorts were asked to respond to hypothetical scenarios rather than report directly on experiences of research oöcyte donation.
Recruitment did not involve an individual approach by the researcher to potential participants. Only upon the expression of written interest did the researcher contact participants (during normal work hours).
References
Access Australia. 2008. The utilisation and meaning of human embryos and eggs: A survey of Access Australia members: A report of the access survey commissioned by the NHMRC. Access Australia.
Ballantyne, A., and S. de Lacey. 2008. Wanted—egg donors for research. A research ethics approach to donor recruitment and compensation. The International Journal of Feminist Approaches to Bioethics 1(2): 145–164.
Belenky, M.F., B.M. Clinchy, N.R. Goldberger, and J.M. Tarule. 1986. Women’s ways of knowing: The development of self, voice, and mind. New York: Basic Books.
Boyatzis, R. 1998. Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code development. London: SAGE publications.
Braude, H., and J. Kimmelman. 2010. The ethics of managing affective and emotional states to improve informed consent: Autonomy, comprehension, and voluntariness. Bioethics. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8519.2010.01838.x.
Brown, N., and A. Webster. 2004. New medical technologies and society: Reordering life. Cambridge: Polity.
Check, E. 2006. Ethicists and biologists ponder the price of eggs. Nature 442(10): 606–607.
Corrigan, O. 2003. Empty ethics: The problem of informed consent. Sociology of Health and Illness 25(3): 768–792.
Dickenson, D. 2006. The lady vanishes: What’s missing from the stem cell debate. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 3(1–2): 43–54.
Dickenson, D., and I. Idiakez. 2008. Ova donation for stem cell research: An international perspective. The International Journal of Feminist Approaches to Bioethics 1(2): 125–143.
Ehrich, K., C. Williams, B. Farsides, J. Sandall, and R. Scott. 2007. Choosing embryos: Ethical complexity and relational autonomy in staff accounts of PGD. Sociology of Health and Illness 29(7): 1091–1106.
Embryo Research Licensing Committee of the NHMRC. 2008. Licence Number 309714. National Health and Medical Research Council.
Empire State Stem Cell Board. 2009. Statement of the Empire State Stem Cell Board on the compensation of oöcyte donors. http://stemcell.ny.gov/oocyte_donation.html. New York Stem Cell Science.
Frank, A. 1995. The wounded storyteller: Body, illness, and ethics. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Franklin, S. 1997. Embodied progress. London: Routledge.
Franklin, S., and S. Kaufman. 2009. Ethical and consent issues in the reproductive setting: The case of egg, sperm, and embryo donation. In Tissue and cell donation: An essential guide, ed. R. Warwick, D. Fehily, S. Brubaker, and T. Eastland, 222–242. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Friedman, M. 2000. Autonomy, social disruption, and women. In Relational autonomy: Feminist perspectives on autonomy, agency, and the social self, ed. C. MacKenzie and N. Stoljar, 35–51. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.
Gunby, J., F. Bissonnette, C. Librach, and L. Cowan. 2010. Assisted reproductive technologies (ART) in Canada: 2006 results from the Canadian ART Register. Fertility and Sterility 93(7): 2189–2201.
Haimes, E. 2009. Fresh embryo donation for human embryonic stem cell (hESC) research: The experiences and values of IVF couples asked to be embryo donors. Human Reproduction 24(9): 2142–2150.
Haimes, E., R. Porz, J. Scully, and C. Rehmann-Sutter. 2008. “So, what is an embryo?” A comparative study of the views of those asked to donate embryos for hESC research in the UK and Switzerland. New Genetics and Society 27(2): 113–126.
Haimes, E., and K. Taylor. 2009. The contributions of empirical evidence to socio-ethical debates on fresh embryo donation for human embryonic stem cell research. Bioethics 25(6): 334–341. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8519.2009.01792.x.
Halpern, J. 2010. When concretized emotion-belief complexes derail decision-making capacity. Bioethics. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8519.2010.01817.x.
Held, V. 1993. Feminist morality: Transforming culture, society, and politics. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Iltis, A. 2006. Lay concepts in informed consent to biomedical research: The capacity to understand and appreciate risk. Bioethics 20(4): 180–190.
Jaggar, A. 1993. Taking consent seriously: Feminist practical ethics and actual moral dialogue. In Applied ethics: A reader, ed. E. Winkler and J. Coombs, 69–86. Cambridge: Blackwell.
Katz Rothman, B. 1989. Recreating motherhood: Ideology and technology in a patriarchal society. New York: W.W. Norton and Company.
Kvale, S. 1996. InterViews: An introduction to qualitative research interviewing. California: Sage.
Little, M. 2009. The role of regret in informed consent. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 6(1): 49–59.
Little, M., C. Jordens, C. McGrath, K. Montgomery, W. Lipworth, and I. Kerridge. 2008. Informed consent and medical ordeal: A qualitative study. Internal Medicine Journal 38(8): 624–628.
Lupton, D. 1994. Medicine as culture: Illness, disease and the body in Western societies. London: Sage.
Markens, S., C. Browner, and H. Preloran. 2010. Interrogating the dynamics between power, knowledge and pregnant bodies in amniocentesis decision-making. Sociology of Health and Illness 32(1): 37–56.
Murdoch, A. 2008. Information leaflet for egg sharing for research. Newcastle upon Tyne: Newcastle upon Tyne Hospital.
National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC). 2007. Ethical guidelines on the use of assisted reproductive technology in clinical practice and research. Canberra: Australian Government.
Nature. 2006. Safeguards for donors. Nature 442(7103): 601.
Rid, A., and L. Dinhofer. 2009. Consent. In Tissue and cell donation: An essential guide, ed. R. Warwick, D. Fehily, S. Brubaker, and T. Eastland, 67–97. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Roberts, C., and K. Throsby. 2008. Paid to share: IVF patients, eggs, and stem cell research. Social Science and Medicine 66(1): 159–169.
Schneider, J. 2008. Fatal colon cancer in a young egg donor: A physician mother’s call for follow-up and research on the long-term risks of ovarian stimulation. Fertility and Sterility 90(5): 2016.e1–2016.e5.
Thompson, C. 2007. Why we should, in fact, pay for egg donation. Regenerative Medicine 2(2): 203–209.
Underman, K. 2011. “It’s the knowledge that puts you in control”: The embodied labour of gynecological educators. Gender and Society 25(4): 431–450.
Wadsworth Hervey, L. 2007. Embodied ethical decision making. American Journal of Dance Therapy 29(2): 91–108.
Waldby, C. 2008. Oöcyte markets: Women’s reproductive work in embryonic stem cell research. New Genetics and Society 27(1): 19–31.
Waldby, C., and R. Mitchell. 2006. Tissue economies: Blood, organs, and cell lines in late capitalism. Durham: Duke University Press.
Weiss, G. 1999. Body images: Embodiment as intercorporeality. London and New York: Routledge.
Widdows, H. 2009. Border disputes across bodies: Exploitation in trafficking for prostitution and egg sale for stem cell research. International Journal of Feminist Approaches to Bioethics 2(1): 5–24.
Acknowledgements
This research was funded by an Australian Research Council Linkage Grant (LP0882054). The authors would like to thank the participants for their involvement in the study and anonymous reviewers for their insightful feedback.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Carroll, K., Waldby, C. Informed Consent and Fresh Egg Donation for Stem Cell Research. Bioethical Inquiry 9, 29–39 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-011-9349-4
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-011-9349-4