SpringerLink
Log in

One size does not fit all: the personal nature of completed embryo donation

  • Assisted Reproduction Technologies
  • Published:
Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To assess factors associated with embryo donation among individuals interested in donation in the United States.

Methods

An invitation to complete the 123-item survey was emailed from June to September 2022 to patients at a private practice fertility clinic with interest in donation at the time of IVF. Survey questions included disposition decision, attitudes about embryo status and genetic relatedness, donation disclosure, ideal donation arrangement, and decision satisfaction.

Results

Three hundred thirty-seven completed the survey. Two hundred thirty donated to another person(s), 75 discarded embryos, 25 remained undecided, and disposition was unknown for 7 respondents. There were no demographic differences between groups based on final disposition or use of donor gametes. Few gamete recipients were interested in donation due to biological attachment to embryos. Final embryo disposition was associated with religious factors, not wanting to waste embryos, and storage fee concerns. Final disposition was also significantly associated with concern about donor-conceived children’s (DCP) welfare, being denied the ability to complete donation, personal IVF outcomes, financial or legal issues, future contact with DCP, cognitive appraisal of disposition, beliefs about embryos, someone else raising their genetic child, anonymity, and beliefs about DCP not knowing genetic relationships (p < .001). Donation to others was associated with less regret and greater satisfaction with the emotional/medical aspects of donation and counseling compared to those who discarded embryos (p < .001).

Conclusion

The decision to donate embryos to another person(s) is complex. Counseling that considers individual circumstances, values, and evolving dynamics may facilitate informed decision-making for those navigating infertility treatment, family building, and embryo disposition.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (France)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Shrestha D, La X, Feng HL. Comparison of different stimulation protocols used in in vitro fertilization: a review. Ann Transl Med. 2015;3(10):137. https://doi.org/10.3978/j.issn.2305-5839.2015.04.09.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Scott RT Jr, Upham KM, Forman EJ, Zhao T, Treff NR. Cleavage-stage biopsy significantly impairs human embryonic implantation potential while blastocyst biopsy does not: a randomized and paired clinical trial. Fertil Steril. 2013;100(3):624–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2013.04.039.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Forman EJ, Hong KH, Ferry KM, Tao X, Taylor D, Levy B, Treff NR, Scott RT Jr. In vitro fertilization with single euploid blastocyst transfer: a randomized controlled trial. Fertil Steril. 2013;100(1):100-107.e1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2013.02.056.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Wei D, Liu JY, Sun Y, et al. Frozen versus fresh single blastocyst transfer in ovulatory women: a multicenter, randomized controlled trial. Lancet. 2019;393:1310–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine and the Practice Committee for the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technologies. Guidance on the limits to the number of embryos to transfer: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril. 2021;116(3):651–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2021.06.050.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Kosasa TS, McNamee PI, Morton C, et al. Pregnancy rates after transfer of cryopreserved blastocysts cultured in a sequential media. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005;192:2035–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Ding J, Pry M, Rana N, Dmowski WP. Improved outcome of frozen-thawed blastocyst transfer with Menozo’s twostep thawing compared to the stepwise thawing protocol. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2004;21:203–10.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Provoost V, Pennings G, De Sutter P, Gerris J, Van de Velde A, Dhont M. Reflections by patients who undergo IVF on the use of their supernumerary embryos for science. Reprod Biomed Online. 2010;20(7):880–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2010.03.009.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Wånggren K, Alden J, Bergh T, Skoog Svanberg A. Attitudes towards embryo donation among infertile couples with frozen embryos. Hum Reprod. 2013;28(9):2432–9. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/det252.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Annas GJ. Ulysses and the fate of frozen embryos–reproduction, research, or destruction? N Engl J Med. 2000;343(5):373–6. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM200008033430519.

  11. Hoffman DI, Zellman GL, Fair CC, Mayer JF, Zeitz JG, Gibbons WE, Turner TG Jr. Society for assisted Reproduction Technology (SART) and RAND. Cryopreserved embryos in the United States and their availability for research. Fertil Steril. 2003;79(5):1063–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0015-0282(03)00172-9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Lomax GP, Trounson AO. Correcting misperceptions about cryopreserved embryos and stem cell research. Nat Biotechnol. 2013;31(4):288–90. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.2541.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Christianson MS, Stern JE, Sun F, Zhang H, Styer AK, Vitek W, Polotsky AJ. Embryo cryopreservation and utilization in the United States from 2004–2013. F S Rep. 2020;1(2):71–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.xfre.2020.05.010.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Lyerly AD, Steinhauser K, Voils C, et al. Fertility patients’ views about frozen embryo disposition: results of a multi-institutional U.S. survey. Fertil Steril. 2010;93(2):499–509. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2008.10.015.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. de Lacey S. Parent identity and ‘virtual’ children: why patients discard rather than donate unused embryos. Hum Reprod. 2005;20(6):1661–9. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/deh831.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Fuscaldo G, Russell S, Gillam L. How to facilitate decisions about surplus embryos: patients’ views. Hum Reprod. 2007;22(12):3129–38. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dem325.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Provoost V, Pennings G, De Sutter P, et al. Infertility patients’ beliefs about their embryos and their disposition preferences. Hum Reprod. 2009;24(4):896–905. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/den486.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Newton CR, Fisher J, Feyles V, Tekpetey F, Hughes L, Isacsson D. Changes in patient preferences in the disposal of cryopreserved embryos. Hum Reprod. 2007;22(12):3124–8. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dem287.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Samorinha C, Severo M, Machado H, Figueiredo B, de Freitas C, Silva S. Couples’ willingness to donate embryos for research: a longitudinal study. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2016;95(8):912–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/aogs.12900.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Nachtigall RD, Becker G, Friese C, Butler A, MacDougall K. Parents’ conceptualization of their frozen embryos complicates the disposition decision. Fertil Steril. 2005;84(2):431–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2005.01.134.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Bruno C, Dudkiewicz-Sibony C, Berthaut I, et al. Survey of 243 ART patients having made a final disposition decision about their surplus cryopreserved embryos: the crucial role of symbolic embryo representation. Hum Reprod. 2016;31(7):1508–14. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dew104.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Kirkpatrick BE, Rashkin MD. Ancestry testing and the practice of genetic counseling. J Genet Couns. 2017;26(1):6–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10897-016-0014-2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Regalado A. More than 26 million people have taken an at-home ancestry test. MIT Technology Review. 2019. Feb. 11 [Cited 2020 August 31]. Available from:. www.technologyreview.com/s/612880/more-than-26-million-people-have-taken-an-at-home-ancestry-test/.

  24. Carroll NM, Blum-Barnett E, Madrid SD, Jonas C, Janes K, Alvarado M, Bedoy R, Paolino V, Aziz N, McGlynn EA, Burnett-Hartman AN. Demographic differences in the utilization of clinical and direct-to-consumer genetic testing. J Genet Couns. 2020;29(4):634–43. https://doi.org/10.1002/jgc4.1193.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Salloum RG, George TJ, Silver N, Markham MJ, Hall JM, Guo Y, Bian J, Shenkman EA. Rural-urban and racial-ethnic differences in awareness of direct-to-consumer genetic testing. BMC Public Health. 2018;18(1):277. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-018-5190-6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Roche K, Racowsky C, Harper J. Utilization of preimplantation genetic testing in the USA. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2021;38(5):1045–53. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-021-02078-4.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Theobald R, SenGupta S, Harper J. The status of preimplantation genetic testing in the UK and USA. Hum Reprod. 2020;35(4):986–98. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/deaa034.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Hipp HS, Crawford S, Boulet S, Toner J, Sparks AAE, Kawwass JF. Trends and outcomes for preimplantation genetic testing in the United States, 2014–2018. JAMA. 2022;327(13):1288–90.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Carpinello O, Bodily BM, Jahandideh S, Cebert M, Combs JC, Hill MJ, et al. Just over one-third of patients interested in embryo donation complete embryo donation. Fertil Steril. 2020;114:e102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Fuchs Weizman N, Yee S, Kazay A, K’Necht E, Kuwar AA, Maltz GM, Librach CL. Non-identified and directed embryo donation: a questionnaire study on donor and recipient perspectives. Hum Fertil (Camb). 2023;26(6):1417–28.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. de Lacey S. Decisions for the fate of frozen embryos: fresh insights into patients’ thinking and their rationales for donating or discarding embryos. Hum Reprod. 2007;22(6):1751–8. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dem056.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Millbank J, Stuhmcke A, Karpin I. Embryo donation and understanding of kinship: the impact of law and policy. Hum Reprod. 2017;32(1):133–8. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dew297.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Tsai S, Hynes JS, Zanolli N, Raburn D, Steiner AZ. Association between donor gamete use and supernumerary embryo disposition decisions. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2023;40(2):371–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-022-02690-y.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Chacon K, Lanes A, Insogna I, Hornstein M. Patient decision-making process for disposition of cryopreserved embryos. Fertil Steril. 2022;118:e93–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Bangsbøll S, Pinborg A, Yding Andersen C, Nyboe Andersen A. Patients’ attitudes towards donation of surplus cryopreserved embryos for treatment or research. Hum Reprod. 2004;19(10):2415–9. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/deh441.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Fuscaldo G, Russell S, Gillam L. How to facilitate decisions about surplus embryos: patients’ views. Hum Reprod. 2007;22(12):3129–38. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dem325.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. McMahon CA, Saunders DM. Attitudes of couples with stored frozen embryos toward conditional embryo donation. Fertil Steril. 2009;91(1):140–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2007.08.004.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Takahashi S, Fujita M, Fujimoto A et al. The decision-making process for the fate of frozen embryos by Japanese infertile women: a qualitative study. BMC Med Ethics. 2012;13:9. Published 2012 May 20. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6939-13-9.

  39. Klitzman R. How much is a child worth? Providers’ and patients’ views and responses concerning ethical and policy challenges in paying for ART. PLoS ONE. 2017;12(2):e0171939. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0171939.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Köther AK, Alpers GW, Büdenbender B, Lenhart M, Michel MS, Kriegmair MC. Predicting decisional conflict: anxiety and depression in shared decision making. Patient Educ Couns. 2021;104(5):1229–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2020.10.037.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Ajzen I, Klobas J. Fertility intentions: an approach based on the theory of planned behavior. Demographic Research. 2013;29:203–32. https://doi.org/10.4054/DemRes.2013.29.8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Caughey LE, White KM. Psychosocial determinants of women’s intentions and willingness to freeze their eggs. Fertil Steril. 2021;115(3):742–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2020.09.150.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Purewal S, van den Akker O. Attitudes and intention to donate oocytes for research. Fertil Steril. 2010;93(4):1080–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2008.11.021.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Braverman AM. Mental health counseling in third-party reproduction in the United States: evaluation, psychoeducation, or ethical gatekee**? Fertil Steril. 2015;104(3):501–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2015.06.023.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Lee JC, DeSantis CE, Boulet SL, Kawwass JF. Embryo donation: national trends and outcomes, 2004–2019. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2023;228(3):318.e1-318.e7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2022.10.045.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Kawwass JF, Crawford S, Hipp HS, et al. Embryo donation: national trends and outcomes, 2000 through 2013. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016;215(6):747.e1-747.e5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2016.06.050.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Assisted reproductive technology (ART) fertility clinic and national summary report. https://cdc.gov/art/reports/2019/fertility-clinic.html. Accessed March 14, 2023.

Download references

Funding

Funding was provided by The National Human Genome Research Institute/National Institute of Health (1RM1HG009037; Rothwell/Tabery (MPIs)).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, The George Washington University School of Medicine and Health Sciences, 2150 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Washington., DC, 20037, USA

    Seth J. Barishansky

  2. Shady Grove Fertility, Rockville, MD, USA

    Seth J. Barishansky, Kate Devine & Jeanne E. O’Brien

  3. Division of Medical Ethics and Humanities, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA

    Erin Rothwell

  4. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA

    Angela K. Lawson

Authors
  1. Seth J. Barishansky
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kate Devine
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jeanne E. O’Brien
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Erin Rothwell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Angela K. Lawson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Seth J. Barishansky.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Attestation statement

• The subjects in this trial have not concomitantly been involved in other randomized trials (If applicable).

• Data regarding any of the subjects in the study has not been previously published unless specified.

• Data will be made available to the editors of the journal for review or query upon request.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOC 270 kb)

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Barishansky, S.J., Devine, K., O’Brien, J.E. et al. One size does not fit all: the personal nature of completed embryo donation. J Assist Reprod Genet (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-024-03156-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-024-03156-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation