In New Zealand, embryo donation (ED) is “open,” allowing offspring to access genetic information. Donors and recipients meet prior to donation. Drawing on interviews with 15 recipients, 22 donors, and nine counselors, this article discusses how ED may be constructed as a form of gifting. This discourse may evoke expectations that recipients will express gratitude for the gift, including through honoring contact agreements. Donation becomes a relational practice of obligations and counter-obligations. However, the gift discourse may not adequately capture the emotional sacrifice experienced by donors. Donors describe significant attachment to their embryos, ambiguity about relinquishment, and interest in offsprings’ welfare. Furthermore, embryos may be constructed as inalienable bodily gifts resulting in children with whom the donors share immutable social ties. A discourse of ED as mutual exchange, collaboration, and extended family building may be more useful to donors and recipients in managing ED.
AlmelingR. (2006). “Why do you want to be a donor?” Gender and the production of altruism in egg and sperm donation. New Genetics and Society, 25, 143–157. doi:10.1080/14636770600855184
2.
AlmelingR. (2007). Selling genes, selling gender: Egg agencies, sperm banks, and the medical market in genetic material. American Sociological Review, 72, 319–340. doi:10.1177/000312240707200301
3.
ApplegarthL. D. (2006). Embryo donation: Counselling donors and recipients. In CovingtonS. N.Hammer BurnsL. (Eds.), Infertility counselling: A comprehensive handbook for clinicians (2nd ed., pp. 356–369). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
4.
BurrV. (2003). Social constructionism (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.
5.
CelcerI. (2007). Hope and Will have a baby: The gift of embryo donation. Niskayuna, NY: Graphite Press.
6.
DanielsK. R.LewisG. M. (1996). Donor insemination: The gifting and selling of semen. Social Science & Medicine, 42, 1521–1536. doi:10.1016/0277-9536(95)00251-0
7.
de LaceyS. (2005). Parent identity and “virtual” children: Why patients discard rather than donate unused embryos. Human Reproduction, 20, 1661–1669. doi:10.1093/humrep/deh831
8.
de LaceyS. (2007a). Decisions for the fate of frozen embryos: Fresh insights into patients’ thinking and their rationales for donating or discarding embryos. Human Reproduction, 22, 1751–1758. doi:10.1093/humrep/dem056
9.
de LaceyS. (2007b). Patients’ attitudes to their embryos and their destiny: Social conditioning?Best Practice & Research Clinical Obstetrics & Gynaecology, 21, 101–112. doi:10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2006.08.003
10.
ElliottJ. (2005). Using narrative in social research: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Fertility Associates. (2016). Pathway to a child. Auckland: Author.
13.
GoedekeS. (2014). Understandings and experiences of embryo donation in the New Zealand context (Unpublished doctoral thesis), Auckland University of Technology, New Zealand.
14.
GoedekeS.DanielsK.ThorpeM.du Preez (2015). Building extended families through embryo donation: The experiences of donors and recipients. Human Reproduction, 30, 2340–2350.
KirkmanM. (2003). Egg and embryo donation and the meaning of motherhood. Women and Health, 38(2), 1–18. doi:10.1300/J013v38n02_01
18.
LyerlyA. D.SteinhauserK.VoilsC.NameyE.AlexanderC.BankowskiB.. . . WallachE. (2010). Fertility patients’ views about frozen embryo disposition: Results of a multi-institutional U.S. survey. Fertility and Sterility, 93, 499–509. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2008.10.015
ParkerI. (2005). Qualitative psychology: Introducing radical research. Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press.
21.
RiggsD. W.ScholzB. (2011). The value and meaning attached to genetic relatedness among Australian sperm donors. New Genetics and Society, 30, 41–58. doi:10.1080/14636778.2011.552299
22.
ShawR. (2007). The gift-exchange and reciprocity of women in donor-assisted conception. The Sociological Review, 55, 293–310. doi:10.1111/j.1467-954X.2007.00706.x
ShawR. (2010a). Organ donation in Aotearoa/New Zealand. Body & Society, 16, 127–147. doi:10.1177/1357034X10373405
25.
ShawR. (2010b). Perceptions of the gift relationship in organ and tissue donation: Views of intensivists and donor and recipient coordinators. Social Science & Medicine, 70, 609–615. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2009.10.062
26.
ShawR. (2011). Thanking and reciprocating under the New Zealand organ donartion system. Health, 16, 298–313. doi:10.1177/1363459311411167
27.
StielM.McMahonC. A.ElwynG.BoivinJ. (2010). Pre-birth characteristics and 5-year follow-up of women with cryopreserved embryos after successful in vitro fertilisation treatment. Journal of Psychosomatic Obstetrics and Gynecology, 31, 32–39. doi:10.3109/01674820903537081
28.
SvendsenM. N. (2007). Between reproductive and regenerative medicine: Practising embryo donation and civil responsibility in Denmark. Body & Society, 13(4), 21–45. doi:10.1177/1357034X07087098
29.
ThompsonR. (2012, October). [Comment]. Panel of experienced infertility counsellors, lawyers and others discuss pre-selected questions and dilemmas. Symposium conducted at the Australian and New Zealand Infertility Counsellors’ Association (ANZICA) workshop, Auckland, New Zealand
30.
TittmusR. (1997). The gift relationship: From human blood to social policy. New York: New York Press. (Original work published 1970)
31.
WilligC. (2010). Introducing qualitative research in psychology (2nd ed.). Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press.
