Egg donation in the age of vitrification: A study of egg providers’ perceptions and experiences in the UK, Belgium and Spain

Date

2022-11-28

Advisors

Journal Title

Journal ISSN

ISSN

Volume Title

Publisher

Wiley

Type

Article

Peer reviewed

Yes

Abstract

IVF treatment involving donated eggs increases yearly. Numerous technical and commercial transformations have reshaped how eggs are retrieved, stored and managed. A key transformation is vitrification; a ‘fast freezing’ method that allows efficient preservation of eggs, and therefore more flexibility in use, giving rise to new commercial possibilities. There has been limited focus on egg providers’ experiences in the context of vitrification and related commercialisation. We report findings from a study in the UK, Spain and Belgium, where we interviewed 75 egg providers. Comparing experiences within different donation ‘regimes’ allows an exploration of how varying national practices and policies shape information-giving and women’s experiences. In the UK, a system of ‘informed gift-giving’ was described, where egg providers saw their actions as not-for-profit and felt relatively well informed. In Belgium, the system was presented as ‘trusted tissue exchange’: with less information-giving than in the UK, but clinics were trusted to act responsibly. In Spain, a ‘closed-door, market-driven’ system was described, whereby egg providers received little information and expressed concerns about generation of excess profit. Our findings extend understandings of how egg donation is managed at the national level and how donation regimes produce specific experiences, expectations and subjectivities amongst tissue providers.

Description

open access article

Keywords

assisted reproduction, bioeconomies, commercialisation, cryopreservation, donor experience, egg donation, IVF, vitrification

Citation

Lafuente‐Funes, S., Weis, C., Hudson, N. and Provoost, V. (2022) Egg donation in the age of vitrification: A study of egg providers’ perceptions and experiences in the UK, Belgium and Spain. Sociology of Health & Illness, 45 (2), pp. 259-278

Rights

Research Institute