Challenges of Donor Selection: The Experiences of Iranian Infertile Couples Undergoing Assisted Reproductive Donation Procedures

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 Associate Professor , Department of Reproductive Health, Research Center for Patient Safety, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran.

2 Ph.D. Student of Reproductive Health, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Shahid Beheshti University Of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.

3 Associate Professor, Department of Reproductive Health, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Shahid Beheshti University Of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.

4 Professor, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Ovulation Dysfunction Research Center, School of Medicine, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran.

Abstract

Introduction: Couples seeking assisted reproductive donation procedures are faced with complex challenges throughout their treatment which can have important psychological impacts on their life. Selecting a suitable donor is one of the hardest decisions they will ever make. This study was done aimed to provide an in-depth description of the experiences of couples in relation to donor selection.
Methods: In this descriptive exploratory qualitative study 32 infertile couples who were candidate to use assisted reproductive donation procedures were purposefully selected from Montaserieh infertility center, Mashhad, Iran in 2012. Data were collected through conducting semi-structured interviews and analyzed using conventional content analysis. Member check and expert debriefing were used to enhance study rigor.
Results: The experiences of infertile couples in relation to donor selection were classified in three categories: challenging selection of type of donor, adopting selection criteria and searching for donor suitability. Most of the couples agreed with unknown donors. The most important criterion for donor selection from couples' point of view was moral issues. Nevertheless, due to limited number of donors, in most cases couples did not search about donor before selection.
Conclusion: Limited number of donors is the most important issue in most of couples to make decision regarding donor selection, which caused they relinquish from thinking on the type of donor and selection criteria.

Keywords

References

  1. Inhorn MC. Right to assisted reproductive technology: overcoming infertility in low-resource countries. Int J Gynecol Obstet 2009 Aug;106(2):172-4.
  2. Abbasi-Shavazi MJ, Razeghi Nasrabad HB, Behjati Ardakani Z, Akhondi MM. [Attitudes of infertile women towards gamete donation: a case study in Tehran] [Article in Persian]. J Reprod Infertil 2006 JulSep;7(2(27)):139-48 .
  3. Greenfeld DA , Greenfeld DG , Mazure CM, Keefe DL, Olive DL. Do attitudes toward disclosure in donor oocyte recipients predict the use of anonymous versus directed donation? Ferti Steril 1998 Dec;70(6):1009-14.
  4. Shehab D, Duff J, Pasch LA, Mac Dougall K, Scheib JE, Nachtigall RD. How parents whose children have been conceived with donor gametes make their disclosure decision: contexts,influences, and couple dynamics Fertil Steril 2008 Jan;89(1):179-84.
  5. Greenfeld DA , Klock Disclosure decisions among known and anonymous oocyte donation recipients . Fertil Steril 2004 Jun;81(6):1565-71.
  6. Klock SC, Greenfeld DA. Parents' knowledge about the donors and their attitudes toward disclosure in oocyte donation. Hum Reprod 2004 Jul;9(7):1575-9.
  7. Hershberger P. Pregnant donor oocyte recipients: the lived experience. Chicago:University of Illinois;2005.
  8. Hart V, Plath D. Egg donor wanted: social work with women looking for an egg donor. Austr Soc Work 2011;64(4):515-25.
  9. Yee S, Hitkari JA, Greenblatt EM. A follow-up study of women who donated oocytes to known recipient couples for altruistic reasons. Hum Reprod 2007 Jul;22(7):2040-50.
  10. Svanberg AS, Lampic C, Bergh T , Lundkvist OE .Characterization of potential oocyte donors in Sweden. Hum Reprod 2003 Ocr;18(10):2205-15.
  11. Purewal S, van den Akker OB. British women’s attitudes towards oocyte donation: Ethnic differences and altruism. Patient Educ Couns 2003 Dec;64(1-3):43-9.
  12. Purewal S, van den Akker OB. Systematic review of oocyte donation: investigating attitudes, motivations and experiences. Hum Reprod 2009 Sep-Oct;15(5):499-515.
  13. Baeten P, Devroey P, Camus M, Van Steirteghem AC, Ponjaert-Kristoffersen I. Counselling couples and donors for oocyte donation: the decision to use either known or anonymous oocytes. Hum Reprod 2000 Feb;15(2):47684.
  14. Hershberger P. Recipients of oocyte donation: An integrative review. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs 2004 SepOct;33(5):610-21.
  15. Kilic S, Ucar M, Yaren H, Gulec M, Atac A, Demirel F, et al. Determination of the attitudes of Turkish infertile women towards surrogacy and oocyte donation. Pak J Med Sci 2009 Han-Mar;25(1):36-40.
  16. Creswell JW, Plano Clark VL. Designing and conducting mixed methods research. California:Sage Publication;2007.
  17. Polit DF, Beck CT. Essential of nursing research methods, appraisal and utilization. 6th ed. Philadelphia:Lippincott Williams & Wilkins;2006.
  18. Jafarzadeh MG. [Assisted human reproduction techniques: necessities, achievements and the need] [Article in Persian]. J Reprod Infertil 2001;2(1):4-
  19. Englert Y. Ethics of oocyte donation are challenged by the health care system. Hum Reprod 1996 Nov;11(11):2353-5.
  20. Kalfoglou AL, Gelle G. A follow-up study with oocyte donors exploring their experiences, knowledge,and attitudes about the use of their oocytes and the outcome of the donation. Fertil Steril 2000 Oct;74(4):660-7.

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics