IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v195y2017icp25-33.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Medical egg freezing and cancer patients’ hopes: Fertility preservation at the intersection of life and death

Author

Listed:
  • Inhorn, Marcia C.
  • Birenbaum-Carmeli, Daphna
  • Patrizio, Pasquale

Abstract

Egg freezing (i.e., oocyte cryopreservation) is a new reproductive technology that allows women's eggs to be frozen and stored for future use. Over the past five years, so-called “medical egg freezing” (MEF) has begun to play a major role as a form of fertility preservation for young women with cancer and other fertility-threatening medical conditions. Indeed, women who are candidates for MEF are often facing the “double jeopardy” of fertility loss and potential death. In this article, we examine the experiences of the first generation of women to use MEF in the United States and Israel, two countries where experimental use of MEF began early, and where MEF is now offered clinically in many in vitro fertilization (IVF) clinics. Through an ethnographic, interview-based study carried out between June 2014 and August 2016 with 45 women (33 American, 12 Israeli) who had completed at least one cycle of MEF, we highlight women's reflections on their egg freezing experiences, and their considerable hopes for future recovery and motherhood. However, MEF is a Janus-faced new “hope technology.” On the one hand, it holds out the promise of life in terms of recovery and future childbearing. As such, women's reflections on MEF reveal hope and gratitude for the technology's existence. However, as with IVF itself, future motherhood can never be guaranteed. This is especially true for women facing death from advanced or aggressive forms of cancers. Three ethnographic case studies of cancer patients, two from the US and one from Israel, highlight how MEF offers hope for life among women confronted with a deadly disease.

Suggested Citation

  • Inhorn, Marcia C. & Birenbaum-Carmeli, Daphna & Patrizio, Pasquale, 2017. "Medical egg freezing and cancer patients’ hopes: Fertility preservation at the intersection of life and death," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 195(C), pages 25-33.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:195:y:2017:i:c:p:25-33
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2017.10.031
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953617306482
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.socscimed.2017.10.031?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Quinn, Gwendolyn P. & Vadaparampil, Susan T. & Bell-Ellison, Bethany A. & Gwede, Clement K. & Albrecht, Terrance L., 2008. "Patient-physician communication barriers regarding fertility preservation among newly diagnosed cancer patients," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 66(3), pages 784-789, February.
    2. Scott M Nelson & Debbie A Lawlor, 2011. "Predicting Live Birth, Preterm Delivery, and Low Birth Weight in Infants Born from In Vitro Fertilisation: A Prospective Study of 144,018 Treatment Cycles," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(1), pages 1-11, January.
    3. Aakrati Mathur & E. Robert Orellana & Amy Frohnmayer & Pauline Jivanjee & Lillian Nail & Brandon Hayes-Lattin & Rebecca G. Block, 2013. "Patients’ Perception of Patient–Provider Communication in Fertility Preservation Decision Making Among Young Women With Cancer," SAGE Open, , vol. 3(3), pages 21582440135, September.
    4. Kitzinger, Jenny & Williams, Clare, 2005. "Forecasting science futures: Legitimising hope and calming fears in the embryo stem cell debate," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 61(3), pages 731-740, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Alon, Ido & Guimón, José & Urbanos-Garrido, Rosa, 2019. "What to expect from assisted reproductive technologies? Experts' forecasts for the next two decades," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 148(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Steven Kettell, 2010. "Rites of Passage: Discursive Strategies in the 2008 Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill Debate," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 58(4), pages 789-808, October.
    2. Parry, Sarah, 2006. "(Re)constructing embryos in stem cell research: Exploring the meaning of embryos for people involved in fertility treatments," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 62(10), pages 2349-2359, May.
    3. Jennifer Chamberlain-Salaun & Kim Usher & Jane Mills, 2020. "Outsiders in the Experts’ World: A Grounded Theory Study of Consumers and the Social World of Health Care," SAGE Open, , vol. 10(1), pages 21582440209, January.
    4. Watt, Amber M. & Elshaug, Adam G. & Willis, Cameron D. & Hiller, Janet E., 2011. "Assisted reproductive technologies: A systematic review of safety and effectiveness to inform disinvestment policy," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 102(2), pages 200-213.
    5. Wainwright, Steven P. & Williams, Clare & Michael, Mike & Farsides, Bobbie & Cribb, Alan, 2006. "From bench to bedside? Biomedical scientists' expectations of stem cell science as a future therapy for diabetes," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 63(8), pages 2052-2064, October.
    6. Shepherd, Richard & Barnett, Julie & Cooper, Helen & Coyle, Adrian & Moran-Ellis, Jo & Senior, Victoria & Walton, Chris, 2007. "Towards an understanding of British public attitudes concerning human cloning," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 65(2), pages 377-392, July.
    7. James Painter & J. Scott Brennen & Silje Kristiansen, 2020. "The coverage of cultured meat in the US and UK traditional media, 2013–2019: drivers, sources, and competing narratives," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 162(4), pages 2379-2396, October.
    8. Aakrati Mathur & E. Robert Orellana & Amy Frohnmayer & Pauline Jivanjee & Lillian Nail & Brandon Hayes-Lattin & Rebecca G. Block, 2013. "Patients’ Perception of Patient–Provider Communication in Fertility Preservation Decision Making Among Young Women With Cancer," SAGE Open, , vol. 3(3), pages 21582440135, September.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:195:y:2017:i:c:p:25-33. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.