ror.org/02s6k3f65
Abstracts
Abstract
Background: With multiple options available today to become a parent, how does the matter of genetic relatedness factor into adolescent cancer patients’ fertility preservation (FP) decision making? This study reports on and normatively analyzes this aspect of FP decision making. Methods: A convenience sample of Israeli adolescent cancer survivors and their parents were invited to participate in individual, semi-structured interviews. Results: In discussing the importance of genetic relatedness to future children or grandchildren, participants repeatedly brought up the interrelated issues of nature, normalcy, and personal identity. Regardless of preference or ambivalence for genetic relatedness, the majority of participants were aware of alternative parenting options and noted both their advantages and disadvantages. However, knowledge of alternative parenting options was not uniform. Conclusions: To ensure that adolescent patients and their parents make informed FP decisions that meet their personal goals and values, it is important for physicians to discuss alternative parenting options with them in a culturally sensitive manner. Greater credence also should be given to those who question the importance of genetic relatedness.
Keywords:
- fertility preservation,
- oncofertility,
- decision making,
- genetic relatedness,
- alternative parenting options
Résumé
Contexte : Avec les multiples options disponibles aujourd’hui pour devenir parent, comment la question de la parenté génétique est-elle prise en compte dans la décision de préservation de la fertilité (PF) des adolescents atteints de cancer? Cette étude rend compte et analyse de manière normative cet aspect de la prise de décision en matière de PF. Méthodes : Un échantillon de commodité d’adolescents survivants israéliens du cancer et leurs parents a été invité à participer à des entretiens individuels semi-structurés. Résultats : En discutant de l’importance de la parenté génétique des futurs enfants ou petits-enfants, les participants ont soulevé à plusieurs reprises les questions interdépendantes de la nature, de la normalité et de l’identité personnelle. Indépendamment de leur préférence ou de leur ambivalence à l’égard de la parenté génétique, la majorité des participants étaient conscients des autres options parentales et en ont noté les avantages et les inconvénients. Cependant, la connaissance des options parentales alternatives n’était pas uniforme. Conclusions : Afin de garantir que les patients adolescents et leurs parents prennent des décisions relatives à la PF qui répondent à leurs objectifs et valeurs personnels, il est important que les médecins discutent avec eux des options parentales alternatives en tenant compte de leur culture. Il faut également accorder plus de crédit à ceux qui remettent en question l’importance de la parenté génétique.
Mots-clés :
- préservation de la fertilité,
- oncofertilité,
- prise de décision,
- lien génétique,
- options parentales alternatives
Appendices
Bibliography
- 1. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2017. CA Cancer J Clin. 2017;67(1):7–30.
- 2. Schover LR, Brey K, Lichtin A, Lipshultz LI, Jeha S. Knowledge and experience regarding cancer, infertility, and sperm banking in younger male survivors. J Clin Oncol. 2002;20(7):1880–9.
- 3. Crawshaw MA, Glaser AW, Hale JP, Sloper P. Male and female experiences of having fertility matters raised alongside a cancer diagnosis during the teenage and young adult years. Eur J Cancer Care. 2009;18(4):381–90.
- 4. Geue K, Richter D, Schmidt R, et al. The desire for children and fertility issues among young German cancer survivors. J Adolesc Heal. 2014;54(5):527–35.
- 5. Hohmann C, Borgmann-Staudt A, Rendtorff R, et al. Patient counselling on the risk of infertility and its impact on childhood cancer survivors: results from a national survey. J Psychosoc Oncol. 2011;29(3):274–85.
- 6. Flink DM. The exploration of fertility attitudes and the need for improved reproductive health services among reproductive-aged cancer patients. University of Colorado Denver, Anschutz Medical Campus; 2016.
- 7. Hudson JN, Stanley NB, Nahata L, Bowman-Curci M, Quinn GP. New promising strategies in oncofertility. Expert Rev Qual life cancer care. 2017;2(2):67–78.
- 8. Dondorp WJ, De Wert GMWR. Fertility preservation for healthy women: ethical aspects. Hum Reprod. 2009;24(8):1779–85.
- 9. Roberts DE. The social context of oncofertility. DePaul L Rev. 2011;61(3):777–98.
- 10. Pennings G, Mertes H. Ethical issues in infertility treatment. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2012;26(6):853–63.
- 11. Crawshaw M, Sloper P. A Qualitative Study of the Experiences of Teenagers and Young Adults When Faced with Possible or Actual Fertility Impairment Following Cancer Treatment. York: University of York; 2006.
- 12. Canada AL, Schover LR. The psychosocial impact of interrupted childbearing in long‐term female cancer survivors. Psycho‐Oncology. 2012;21(2):134–43.
- 13. Gorman JR, Whitcomb BW, Standridge D, et al. Adoption consideration and concerns among young adult female cancer survivors. J Cancer Surviv. 2017;11(1):149–57.
- 14. Morgan TL, Young BP, Lipak KG, et al. “We can always adopt”: perspectives of adolescent and young adult males with cancer and their family on alternatives to biological parenthood. J Adolesc Young Adult Oncol. 2020; 9(5):572–578.
- 15. Gross ML. Autonomy and paternalism in communitarian society: patient rights in Israel. Hastings Cent Rep. 1999;29(4):13–20.
- 16. Remennick L. Childless in the land of imperative motherhood: stigma and coping among infertile Israeli women. Sex Roles. 2000;43(11):821–41.
- 17. Birenbaum-Carmeli D. & Carmeli YS. Reproductive technologies among Jewish Israelis: Setting the ground. In: Kin, Gene, Community: Reproductive Technology Among Jewish Israelis. New York: Berghahn Books; 2010. p.1–48.
- 18. Sperling D, Simon Y. Attitudes and policies regarding access to fertility care and assisted reproductive technologies in Israel. Reprod Biomed Online. 2010;21(7):854–61.
- 19. Barlevy D, Wangmo T, Ash S, Elger BS, Ravitsky V. Oncofertility Decision Making: Findings from Israeli Adolescents and Parents. J Adolesc Young Adult Oncol. 2019;8(1):74–83.
- 20. Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 2006;3(2):77–101.
- 21. Olson ET. Personal Identity. Zalta EN, editor. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University; 2019.
- 22. Letherby G. When treatment ends: The experience of women and couples. In: Crawshaw M, Balen R, editors. Adopting After Infertility: Messages From Practice, Research and Personal Experience. London: Jessica Kingsley; 2010. p.29–42.
- 23. Levy N, Lotz M. Reproductive cloning and a (kind of) genetic fallacy. Bioethics. 2005;19(3):232–50.
- 24. Rulli T. Preferring a genetically-related child. J Moral Philos. 2016;13(6):1–30.
- 25. Asch A. The lessons of oncofertility for assisted reproduction. In: Woodruff TK, Zoloth L, Campo-Engelstein L, Rodriguez S, eds. Oncofertility. Springer; 2010. p.181–6.
- 26. McLeod C. Morally justifying oncofertility research. In: Woodruff TK, Zoloth L, Campo-Engelstein L, Rodriguez S, eds. Oncofertility. Springer; 2010. p.187–94.
- 27. Bockus D. How Two Couples Adapt to Biological Childlessness and Reconstruct Their Lives Once Fertility is no Longer a Viable Option. Masters Thesis, Department of Counselling Psychology, University of British Columbia; 1997.
- 28. Daniluk JC. When treatment fails: The transition to biological childlessness for infertile women. Women Ther. 1996;19(2):81–98.
- 29. Montgomery KS, Green T, Maher B, et al. Women’s desire for pregnancy. J Perinat Educ. 2010;19(3):53–61.
- 30. Overall C. Human Reproduction: Principles, Practices, Policies. Oxford University Press; 1993. 503 p.
- 31. Loren AW, Mangu PB, Beck LN, Brennan L, Magdalinski AJ, Partridge AH, et al. Fertility preservation for patients with cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology clinical practice guideline update. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31(19):2500–10.
- 32. Vadaparampil ST, Quinn GP. Improving communication between oncologists and reproductive specialists to promote timely referral of patients with cancer. J Oncol Pract. 2013;9(6):300–2.
- 33. Kelvin JF, Thom B, Benedict C, et al. Cancer and fertility program improves patient satisfaction with information received. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34(15):1780–6.
- 34. Waimey KE, Smith BM, Confino R, Jeruss JS, Pavone ME. Understanding fertility in young female cancer patients. J Women’s Heal. 2015;24(10):812–8.
- 35. Barlevy D, Elger BS, Wangmo T, Ravitsky V. Adolescent oncofertility discussions: Recommendations from a systematic literature review. AJOB Empir Bioeth. 2017;8(2):106–15.
- 36. Kahn SM. Reproducing Jews: A Cultural Account of Assisted Conception in Israel. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press; 2000.
- 37. Birenbaum-Carmeli D, Carmeli YS. Kin, Gene, Community: Reproductive Technologies among Jewish Israelis. Fertility, Reproduction and Sexuality: Social and Cultural Perspectives. Berghahn Books; 2010.
- 38. Sperling D. Commanding the “be fruitful and multiply” directive: reproductive ethics, law, and policy in Israel. Cambridge Q Healthc Ethics. 2010;19(3):363–71.
- 39. Strathern M. Reproducing the Future: Essays on Anthropology, Kinship and the New Reproductive Technologies. Manchester University Press; 1992.
- 40. Riggs DW. Narratives of choice amongst white Australians who undertake surrogacy arrangements in India. J Med Humanit. 2016;37(3):313–25.
- 41. Bharadwaj A. Why adoption is not an option in India: the visibility of infertility, the secrecy of donor insemination, and other cultural complexities. Soc Sci Med. 2003;56(9):1867–80.
- 42. Donkor ES, Sandall J. The impact of perceived stigma and mediating social factors on infertility-related stress among women seeking infertility treatment in Southern Ghana. Soc Sci Med. 2007;65(8):1683–94.
- 43. Inhorn MC. Middle Eastern masculinities in the age of new reproductive technologies: male infertility and stigma in egypt and Lebanon. Med Anthropol Q. 2004;18(2):162–82.