IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v62y2006i10p2349-2359.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

(Re)constructing embryos in stem cell research: Exploring the meaning of embryos for people involved in fertility treatments

Author

Listed:
  • Parry, Sarah

Abstract

The use of human embryos is a key controversy in public debates on stem cell research (SCR), yet little attention has been given to the context or sources from which embryos are obtained: people involved in fertility programmes. How they feel about the use of embryos in SCR, and what may lead them to agree or refuse to donate embryos, remains unexplored. In this paper, I investigate the views of people involved in fertility programmes who may be approached to donate their embryos for SCR, drawing on focus group discussions with two support groups in Scotland. I illustrate how people come to make particular decisions and what factors shape this, and show that participants' views are context-bound, borne out of lived experiences both within the clinic and wider society. In particular, the evidence highlights the importance of understanding their views of what constitutes a 'spare' embryo and what areas of medical research are considered potentially legitimate for using embryos. Peoples' understandings of embryos as potential lives, and the context in which embryos are created, have direct implications for their views about donating embryos for SCR. Attention is paid to how SCR further disrupts the teleology of embryos and undermines the narrative of life that suffuses the hopes of people undergoing fertility treatment. The paper also brings to the fore the sense of moral obligation experienced by participants who feel they have little means or power for influencing the topic and content of SCR. In this context, I suggest there is a need to explore further the views of people involved in fertility treatments in order to identify mechanisms for limiting the potential for coercion when SCR is embedded in and dependent on fertility practices. Debates about using embryos for SCR must, therefore, include the voices of those who thus remain marginalised.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:62:y:2006:i:10:p:2349-2359
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277-9536(05)00550-2
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    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. 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. Delaunay, Catarina & Gouveia, Luís & Santos, Mário JDS. & Morais, Rita, 2023. "(De)Bonding with embryos: The emotional choreographies of Portuguese IVF patients," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 321(C).
    2. Saniei, Mansooreh, 2013. "Human embryonic stem cell science and policy: The case of Iran," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 345-350.
    3. Waldby, Catherine & Kerridge, Ian & Boulos, Margaret & Carroll, Katherine, 2013. "From altruism to monetisation: Australian women's ideas about money, ethics and research eggs," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 34-42.
    4. Pfeffer, Naomi, 2008. "What British women say matters to them about donating an aborted fetus to stem cell research: A focus group study," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 66(12), pages 2544-2554, June.
    5. 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.
    6. Roberts, Celia & Throsby, Karen, 2008. "Paid to share: IVF patients, eggs and stem cell research," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 66(1), pages 159-169, January.
    7. Kent, Julie, 2008. "The fetal tissue economy: From the abortion clinic to the stem cell laboratory," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 67(11), pages 1747-1756, December.

    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. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.

    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:62:y:2006:i:10:p:2349-2359. 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.