Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-22dnz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T15:04:21.913Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 11 - Third-Party Reproduction

Psychosocial Aspects in Infertility Practice

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 February 2021

By
Petra Nordqvist ,
Petra Thorn  and
Jacky Boivin
Edited by
Siladitya Bhattacharya  and
Mark Hamilton
Siladitya Bhattacharya
Affiliation:
University of Aberdeen
Mark Hamilton
Affiliation:
University of Aberdeen
Get access

Summary

Psychosocial support in fertility clinics or centres  providing third-party reproduction has changed over time as reproductive techniques have developed; social norms, legal systems and counselling standards have evolved; and access to information expanded with the world wide web. Today patient support and infertility counselling involves supporting and assessing patients, donors, surrogates and their partners, and the parents and children at all stages of family building from initial decision-making about choices to later family life. Infertility counsellors also address support needs of staff providing fertility care. However, not all centres provide this range of services. The present chapter will review essential components of patient support in third-party reproduction provided by clinic staff and infertility counsellors, highlighting key features of good practice according to the Human Fertilisation & Embryology Code of Practice (2019, 9th edition).

Keywords

psychosocialthird party reproductioninfertilityfertilitydonorsurrogateintended parentgood practice
Type
Chapter
Information
Reproductive Medicine for the MRCOG , pp. 123 - 135
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2021

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References

Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. Code of Practice. 9th ed., London; 2019. Available at: www .hfea.gov.uk/media/2609/june-2018-code-of-practice-9th-edition-draft.pdf (accessed 4 February 2019).Google Scholar
Committee on Quality of Healthcare in America, Institute of Medicine. Improving the 21st century healthcare system: crossing the quality chasm. A new health system for the 21st century. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2001, 39–60.Google Scholar
Dancet, EA, Nelen, WL, Sermeus, W, De Leeuw, L, Kremer, JA, D’Hooghe, TM. The patients’ perspective on fertility care: a systematic review. Hum Reprod Update. 2010;16(5):467–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dancet, EAF, Van Empel, IWH, Rober, P, Nelen, WLDM, Kremer, JAM, d’Hooghe, TM. Patient-centred infertility care: a qualitative study to listen to the patient’s voice. Hum Reprod. 2011;26(4):827–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. Code of Practice, 7th ed. London; 2009.Google Scholar
Nordqvist, P, Smart, C. Relative strangers: family life, genes and donor conception. London: Palgrave Macmillan; 2014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. Fertility treatment 2014–2016: trends and figures. 2018. Available at: www.hfea.gov.uk/media/2563/hfea-fertility-trends-and-figures-2017-v2.pdf (accessed 31 January 2019).Google Scholar
Graham, S. Being a ‘good’ parent: single women reflecting upon ‘selfishness’ and ‘risk’ when pursuing motherhood through sperm donation. Anthropol Med. 2017;25(3):249–64.Google ScholarPubMed
Jadva, V, Badger, S, Morrissette, M, Golombok, S. ‘Mom by choice, single by life’s circumstance … ’: Findings from a large scale survey of the experiences of single mothers by choice. Hum Fertil. 2009;12(4):175–84.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nordqvist, P. ‘Out of sight, out of mind’: family resemblances in lesbian donor conception. Sociology. 2010;44(6):1128–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quiroga, S. Blood is thicker than water: policing donor insemination and the reproduction of whiteness. Hypatia. 2007;22(2):143–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ariza, L. Keeping up appearances in the Argentine fertility clinic: making kinship visible through race in donor conception. Tecnoscienza. 2015;6(1):5–31.Google Scholar
Andreassen, R. Mediated kinship: gender, race and sexuality in donor families. London: Routledge;2019.Google Scholar
Nordqvist, P. Dealing with sperm: comparing lesbians’ clinical and non-clinical donor conception processes. Sociol Health Illness. 2011;33(1):114–29.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Donovan, C, Heaphy, B, Weeks, J. Same sex intimacies: families of choice and other life experiments. New York: Routledge;2001.Google Scholar
Freeman, T, Jadva, V, Tranfield, E, Golombok, S. Online sperm donation: a survey of the demographic characteristics, motivations, preferences and experiences of sperm donors on a connection website. Hum Reprod. 2016;31(9):2082–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jadva, V, Freeman, T, Tranfield, E., Golombok, S. ‘Friendly allies in raising children’: a survey of men and women seeking elective co-parenting arrangements via an online connection website. Hum Reprod. 2015;30(8):1896–906.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jadva, V, Freeman, T, Kramer, W, Golombok, S. Sperm and oocyte donors’ experiences of anonymous donation and subsequent contact with their donor offspring. Hum Reprod. 2010;638–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shelton, KH, Boivin, J, Hay, D, et al. Examining differences in psychological adjustment problems among children conceived by assisted reproductive technologies. IntJ Behav Dev. 2009;33(5):385–92.Google Scholar
Gilman, L, Nordqvist, P. Organising openness: how UK policy defines the significance of information and information sharing about gamete donation. Int J Law Policy Family. 2018;32(3):316–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montuschi, O. Telling and talking series. The Donor Conception Network. 2019. Available at: www.dcnetwork.org/catalog/telling-and-talking-series (accessed 31 January 2019).Google Scholar
Thorn, P, Wischmann, T. German guidelines for psychosocial counselling in the area of gamete donation. Hum Fertil. 2009;12(2):73–80.Google Scholar
Culley, L, Hudson, N. Public understandings of science: British South Asian men’s perception of third party assisted conception. Int J Interdisciplin Soc Sci. 2007;2(4):79–86.Google Scholar
Gameiro, S, Finnigan, A. Long-term adjustment to unmet parenthood goals following ART: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update. 2017;3(1):322–37.Google Scholar
Gorman, GS, McFarland, R, Stewart, J, Feeney, C, Turnbull, DM. Mitochondrial donation: from test tube to clinic. Lancet. 2018;392(10154):1191–2.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dimond, R. Social and ethical issues in mitochondrial donation. British Med Bull. 2015;115(1):173.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shenfield, F, De Mouzon, J, Pennings, G, et al. ESHRE Taskforce on Cross Border Reproductive Care. Cross border reproductive care in six European countries. Hum Reprod. 2010;25(6):1361–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Salama, M, Isachenko, V, Isachenko, E, et al. Cross border reproductive care (CBRC): a growing global phenomenon with multidimensional implications (a systematic and critical review). J Assist Reprod Genet. 2018;1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Japanese baby gets birth certificate. The Hindu, 11 August 2008. Available at www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/tp-otherstates/Japanese-baby-gets-birth-certificate/article15278695.ece (accessed 4 February 2019).Google Scholar
Blyth, E, Thorn, P, Wischmann, T. CBRC and psychosocial counselling: assessing needs and developing an ethical framework for practice. Reprod Biomed Online. 2011;23(5):642–51.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Culley, L, Hudson, N, Rapport, F, Blyth, E, Norton, W, Pacey, AA. Crossing borders for fertility treatment: motivations, destinations and outcomes of UK fertility travellers. Hum Reprod. 2011;26(9):2373–81.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boivin, J, Bunting, L, Koert, E, ieng, UC, Verhaak, C. Perceived challenges of working in a fertility clinic: a qualitative analysis of work stressors and difficulties working with patients. Hum Reprod. 2017;32(2):403–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thorn, P, Wischmann, T, Blyth, E. Cross-border reproductive services–suggestions for ethically based minimum standards of care in Europe. J Psychosom Obstet Gynecol. 2012;33(1):1–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thorn, P. Cross border medically assisted reproduction from a psychosocial perspective-legal challenges and the welfare of the child. Cult Res. 2016;5:317–30.Google Scholar
Harper, J, Kennett, D, Reisel, D. The end of donor anonymity: how genetic testing is likely to drive anonymous gamete donation out of business. Hum Reprod. 2016;31(6):1135–40.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Greely, HT. The end of sex and the future of human reproduction. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 2016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Romanis, EC. Artificial womb technology and the frontiers of human reproduction: conceptual differences and potential implications. J Med Ethics. 2018;44:751–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Further Reading

Crawshaw, MK, Daniels, D, Adam, K, et al. Emerging international models for facilitating contact between people genetically related through donor conception and their implications for donor conception fertility treatment services. Reprod Biomed Soc Online. 2015;1(2):71–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gameiro, S, Boivin, J, Dancet, E, et al. ESHRE guideline: routine psychosocial care in infertility and medically assisted reproduction—a guide for fertility staff. Hum Reprod. 2015;30(11):2476–85.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Golombok, S. Modern families: parents and children in new family forms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hudson, N, Culley, L, Blyth, E, Norton, W, Rapport, F, Pacey, A. 2011. Cross-border reproductive care: a review of the literature. Reprod Biomed Online. 22(7):673–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nordqvist, P. The drive for openness in donor conception: disclosure and the trouble with real life. Int J Law Policy Family.2014;28(3):321–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Söderström-Anttila, V., Wennerholm, U.B., Loft, A., et al. Surrogacy: outcomes for surrogate mothers, children and the resulting families – a systematic review. Hum Reprod Update. 2015;22(2):260–76.Google ScholarPubMed

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×