IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v99y2013icp64-71.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Making families: Organizational boundary work in US egg and sperm donation

Author

Listed:
  • Johnson, Katherine M.

Abstract

Egg and sperm donation can create distinct issues for designating family boundaries. These issues come to the forefront as relations between donors, recipients, and donor-conceived children have been shifting from anonymous to more open arrangements in the US and other western countries. In this study, I address US organizational practices and family boundary construction. Fertility clinics, egg donation agencies, and sperm banks are central providers of US gamete donation services. Given the disruptive potential of gamete donation, how do they manage relationships between parties? Through a content analysis of materials from twenty fertility clinics, twenty egg donation agencies, and thirty-one sperm banks, I address three major strategies of organizational boundary work: 1) creating identity categories, 2) managing information, and 3) managing interaction. I ultimately argue that even as many organizations offer opportunities for connections between parties, they exercise social control over donation arrangements through bounded relationships.

Suggested Citation

  • Johnson, Katherine M., 2013. "Making families: Organizational boundary work in US egg and sperm donation," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 64-71.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:99:y:2013:i:c:p:64-71
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2013.10.015
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953613005637
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.socscimed.2013.10.015?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. Ehrich, Kathryn & Williams, Clare & Scott, Rosamund & Sandall, Jane & Farsides, Bobbie, 2006. "Social welfare, genetic welfare? Boundary-work in the IVF/PGD clinic," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 63(5), pages 1213-1224, September.
    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. Miner, Skye A., 2021. "“I would want to pay her”: Challenging altruistic egg exchanges in Canada through moral patchworks," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 272(C).
    2. Hertz, Rosanna & Nelson, Margaret K. & Kramer, Wendy, 2015. "Gendering gametes: The unequal contributions of sperm and egg donors," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 10-19.

    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. Williams, Clare & Ehrich, Kathryn & Farsides, Bobbie & Scott, Rosamund, 2007. "Facilitating choice, framing choice: Staff views on widening the scope of preimplantation genetic diagnosis in the UK," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 65(6), pages 1094-1105, September.
    2. Miner, Skye A., 2019. "Demarcating the dirty work: Canadian Fertility professionals’ use of boundary-work in contentious egg donation," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 221(C), pages 19-26.
    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.
    4. Zarhin, Dana & Negev, Maya & Vulfsons, Simon & Sznitman, Sharon R., 2018. "Rhetorical and regulatory boundary-work: The case of medical cannabis policy-making in Israel," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 217(C), pages 1-9.

    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:99:y:2013:i:c:p:64-71. 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.