Observed Discrepancies in Donors’ Information Sharing and Oocyte-Embryo Management and Disposition Reported to Reproductive Health Professionals: A Call for Programmatic Improvement

A. S. Jaeger, Linda S. Ross, S. Lindheim
{"title":"Observed Discrepancies in Donors’ Information Sharing and Oocyte-Embryo Management and Disposition Reported to Reproductive Health Professionals: A Call for Programmatic Improvement","authors":"A. S. Jaeger, Linda S. Ross, S. Lindheim","doi":"10.1080/21507716.2011.639125","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Information-sharing practices, disposition of oocytes, and embryo management are at the discretion of the individual assisted reproductive technology (ART) program, donors, and recipients. Ideally, these practices and policies should reflect the information and decision-making needs of the people involved. The ART program that was the focus of this study has incorporated pre- and postdonation discussion of oocyte and embryo disposition into the screening and follow-up processes to improve overall satisfaction. To improve programmatic policy, we assessed how these discussions and the informed consent process were reflected in oocyte donors’ legal contracts. Methods: This retrospective chart review (n = 55) was designed to identify and assess discrepancies between donors’ consented preferences and their executed legal agreements with oocyte recipients. Results: Sixty-three percent of donors had legal contracts that were inconsistent with their medical informed consent. Of this group, 58% agreed with the intended parents’ desires for contact and disposition, resulting in a shift to a position that was more amenable than their signed consent. In contrast, 42% refused to change their desire as expressed in the signed consent, rejecting the intended parents’ request. Most of the differences were around embryo donation, disposition, or donation for research. Seventeen percent of donors were unwilling to allow disclosure of a medical–genetic issue if identified in an offspring. Conclusions: It is imperative for donor coordinators, agency managers, physicians, psychologists, and attorneys to recognize that such discrepancies may occur. These discrepancies may be a sign of duress, manipulation, or anxiety in donors. Alternatively, donors may become clear about their desires and advocate for them as they learn more about the personal implications of their donation through discussions with mental health and legal professionals. Effective communication for all parties is fundamental to create a circle of communication that connects physicians, attorneys, and psychologists and supports donor and recipient decision making.","PeriodicalId":89316,"journal":{"name":"AJOB primary research","volume":"20 1","pages":"23 - 32"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2012-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"AJOB primary research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21507716.2011.639125","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Background: Information-sharing practices, disposition of oocytes, and embryo management are at the discretion of the individual assisted reproductive technology (ART) program, donors, and recipients. Ideally, these practices and policies should reflect the information and decision-making needs of the people involved. The ART program that was the focus of this study has incorporated pre- and postdonation discussion of oocyte and embryo disposition into the screening and follow-up processes to improve overall satisfaction. To improve programmatic policy, we assessed how these discussions and the informed consent process were reflected in oocyte donors’ legal contracts. Methods: This retrospective chart review (n = 55) was designed to identify and assess discrepancies between donors’ consented preferences and their executed legal agreements with oocyte recipients. Results: Sixty-three percent of donors had legal contracts that were inconsistent with their medical informed consent. Of this group, 58% agreed with the intended parents’ desires for contact and disposition, resulting in a shift to a position that was more amenable than their signed consent. In contrast, 42% refused to change their desire as expressed in the signed consent, rejecting the intended parents’ request. Most of the differences were around embryo donation, disposition, or donation for research. Seventeen percent of donors were unwilling to allow disclosure of a medical–genetic issue if identified in an offspring. Conclusions: It is imperative for donor coordinators, agency managers, physicians, psychologists, and attorneys to recognize that such discrepancies may occur. These discrepancies may be a sign of duress, manipulation, or anxiety in donors. Alternatively, donors may become clear about their desires and advocate for them as they learn more about the personal implications of their donation through discussions with mental health and legal professionals. Effective communication for all parties is fundamental to create a circle of communication that connects physicians, attorneys, and psychologists and supports donor and recipient decision making.
向生殖健康专业人员报告的供体信息共享和卵母细胞-胚胎管理和处置的观察差异:对方案改进的呼吁
背景:信息共享实践、卵母细胞处置和胚胎管理由个人辅助生殖技术(ART)项目、供体和受者自行决定。理想情况下,这些实践和政策应该反映相关人员的信息和决策需求。ART项目是本研究的重点,它将捐赠前和捐赠后对卵母细胞和胚胎处置的讨论纳入了筛查和随访过程,以提高总体满意度。为了改进项目政策,我们评估了这些讨论和知情同意过程如何反映在卵子捐赠者的法律合同中。方法:本回顾性图表回顾(n = 55)旨在识别和评估捐赠者同意的偏好与他们与卵母细胞接受者执行的法律协议之间的差异。结果:63%的捐赠者的法律合同与他们的医疗知情同意不一致。在这一群体中,58%的人同意准父母希望接触和处置的愿望,这使得他们的立场比他们签署的同意书更容易接受。相比之下,42%的人拒绝改变他们在签署的同意书中表达的意愿,拒绝了受赠父母的要求。大多数差异是围绕胚胎捐赠、处置或研究捐赠。如果在后代身上发现了医学遗传问题,17%的捐赠者不愿意透露。结论:捐助者协调员、机构经理、医生、心理学家和律师必须认识到这种差异可能会发生。这些差异可能是供体受到胁迫、操纵或焦虑的迹象。或者,捐赠者可以通过与心理健康和法律专业人士的讨论,了解更多捐赠对个人的影响,从而明确自己的愿望,并为自己的愿望辩护。各方的有效沟通是建立一个联系医生、律师和心理学家的沟通圈的基础,并支持捐赠者和接受者的决策。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信