IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v86y2013icp45-51.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Juggling on a rollercoaster? Gains, loss and uncertainties in IVF patients' accounts of volunteering for a U.K. ‘egg sharing for research’ scheme

Author

Listed:
  • Haimes, Erica

Abstract

The past decade has seen a growth in demand for human eggs for stem cell related research and, more recently, for mitochondrial research. That demand has been accompanied by global debates over whether women should be encouraged, by offers of payments, in cash or kind, to provide eggs. Few of these debates have been informed by empirical evidence, let alone by the views of women themselves. This article addresses that gap in knowledge by presenting findings from a UK investigation, conducted 2008–2011, which is the first systematic study of women volunteering to provide eggs under such circumstances. This article focuses on the views and experiences of 25 IVF patients who volunteered for the Newcastle ‘egg sharing for research’ scheme (NESR), in exchange for reduced IVF fees. This was an interview based study, designed to gain understandings of volunteers' perspectives and reasoning. The interviews show that volunteers approached the scheme as a way of accessing more treatment in pursuit of their goal of having a baby, against a landscape of inadequate state provision of treatment and expensive private treatment. The process of deciding to volunteer raised a wide range of uncertainties about the consequent gains and losses, for women already in the uncertain world of the ‘IVF rollercoaster’. However, interviewees preferred to have the option of the NESR, than not, and they juggled the numerous uncertainties with skill and resilience. The article is as revealing of the ongoing challenges of the UK IVF bio-economy as it is of egg provision. This article adds to the growing body of knowledge of the contributions of tissue providers to the global bio-economy. It also contributes to several areas of wider sociological interest, including debates on the social management of ‘uncertainty’ and discussions at the interface of sociology and ethics.

Suggested Citation

  • Haimes, Erica, 2013. "Juggling on a rollercoaster? Gains, loss and uncertainties in IVF patients' accounts of volunteering for a U.K. ‘egg sharing for research’ scheme," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 45-51.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:86:y:2013:i:c:p:45-51
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2013.03.002
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S027795361300155X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.socscimed.2013.03.002?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. Eliott, Jaklin A. & Olver, Ian N., 2007. "Hope and hoping in the talk of dying cancer patients," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 64(1), pages 138-149, January.
    2. Insoo Hyun, 2006. "Fair payment or undue inducement?," Nature, Nature, vol. 442(7103), pages 629-630, August.
    3. Ehrich, Kathryn & Williams, Clare & Farsides, Bobbie, 2010. "Fresh or frozen? Classifying 'spare' embryos for donation to human embryonic stem cell research," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 71(12), pages 2204-2211, December.
    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. repec:aud:audfin:v:20:y:2018:i:49:p:684 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Iuliana Raluca Gheorghe & Victor Lorin Purcarea & Consuela Madalina Gheorghe, 2018. "Consumer eWOM Communication: The Missing Link between Relational Capital and Sustainable Bioeconomy Ii Health Care Services," The AMFITEATRU ECONOMIC journal, Academy of Economic Studies - Bucharest, Romania, vol. 20(49), pages 684-684, August.

    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. Andrew Howell & Thomas Bailie & Karen Buro, 2015. "Evidence for Vicarious Hope and Vicarious Gratitude," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 16(3), pages 687-704, June.
    2. Adler, Matthew D. & Dolan, Paul & Henwood, Amanda & Kavetsos, Georgios, 2022. "“Better the devil you know”: Are stated preferences over health and happiness determined by how healthy and happy people are?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 303(C).
    3. Pi-Hua Chang & Ching-Rong Lin & Yun-Hsiang Lee & Yi-Lin Liu & Gee-Chen Chang & Aasha I Hoogland & Yeur-Hur Lai, 2020. "Exercise experiences in patients with metastatic lung cancer: A qualitative approach," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(4), pages 1-15, April.
    4. Kirby, Emma & Broom, Alex & MacArtney, John & Lewis, Sophie & Good, Phillip, 2021. "Hopeful dying? The meanings and practice of hope in palliative care family meetings," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 291(C).
    5. Coyle, Lindsay-Ann & Atkinson, Sarah, 2018. "Imagined futures in living with multiple conditions: Positivity, relationality and hopelessness," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 198(C), pages 53-60.
    6. Indira Chakravarthi, 2016. "Regulation of Assisted Reproductive Technologies: Gains and Losses," Indian Journal of Gender Studies, Centre for Women's Development Studies, vol. 23(1), pages 133-156, February.
    7. Perrotta, Manuela & Hamper, Josie, 2021. "The crafting of hope: Contextualising add-ons in the treatment trajectories of IVF patients," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 287(C).

    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:86:y:2013:i:c:p:45-51. 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.