Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Choosing Life When Facing Death: Understanding Fertility Preservation Decision-Making for Cancer Patients

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Oncofertility

Part of the book series: Cancer Treatment and Research ((CTAR,volume 156))

Abstract

On a fundamental biological level, humans are programmed to reproduce; hormonal and physiological influences are reinforced by social pressures and structures that urge parenthood in most cultures. The inability to reproduce usually causes distress and suffering among men and women alike. The advent of assisted reproductive technologies such as embryo/egg banking and in vitro fertilization has changed the face of reproduction, offering the possibility of parenting to a wider range of individuals who formerly were unable to reproduce. Although these controversial technologies have arguably blurred the boundaries of what it means to be a family or to parent a child, their wide use reveals that reproduction, particularly biological reproduction, holds great value.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 299.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Of the approximately 300 women who requested fertility preservation consultations at Northwestern University in the past year and a half, approximately 75 chose to pursue a fertility preservation intervention, including embryo banking (n=53), oocyte banking (15), and ovarian tissue cryopreservation (n=7) (Gerrity, September 3, 2009, Personal conversation).

  2. 2.

    Social parent, as used here, refers to a parent who is responsible for everyday caretaking of a child but is not necessarily biologically related to the child [20].

  3. 3.

    Two techniques can be used to stimulate ejaculation in young boys: penile vibratory stimulation, which is noninvasive and simple, or electro-ejaculation, which is more complicated and requires general anesthesia [23].

  4. 4.

    Although this option requires invasive procedures, parents of boys surviving childhood cancer have indicate that this option is both desired and accepted [24].

  5. 5.

    As used in this chapter, “false hope” describes the circumstance when (a) expectations and response strategies are based on illusions rather than reality, (b) inappropriate goals are pursued, and (c) poor methods or strategies are used to achieve desired goals [31]. False hope becomes a concern for young cancer patients who undergo ovarian tissue cryopreservation or testicular tissue biopsy as these techniques are both currently in development and may never be successful.

  6. 6.

    Many successful pregnancies have resulted from well-developed fertility preservation techniques such as sperm banking and IVF, among both the general population and cancer survivors as well. Fewer pregnancies have been attempted using ovarian tissue cryopreservation as the technique is still considered experimental.

References

  1. World Health Organization. The Safe Motherhood Initiative and Beyond. 2007. http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/85/10/07-045963/en/index.html. Accessed June 30, 2009.

  2. Grabill WH. Effect of the war on the birth rate and postwar fertility prospects. Am J Sociol. 1944; 50:107–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Temkin E. Driving through: postpartum care during world war II. Am J Pub Health. 1999; 89:587–95.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Kelly JF. Deploying soldiers put family plans on ice; Sperm deposits seen as hedge against war-related infertility, casualties. Washington Post. 2003 February 4:B01–02.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Thomson R. California Cryobank Protects Our Protectors. http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS154196+13-May-2008+PRN20080513. Accessed February 9, 2009.

  6. Kanniappan S, Jeyapaul MJ, Kalyanwala S. Desire for motherhood: exploring HIV-positive women’s desires, intentions and decision-making in attaining motherhood. AIDS Care. 2008; 20:625–30.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Morgan PS, King RB. Why have children in the 21st century? Biological predisposition, social coercion, rational choice. Eur J Popul. 2001; 17:3–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Fan F, Zou Y, Ma A, Yue Y, Mao W, Ma X. Hormonal changes and somatopsychologic manifestations in the first trimester of pregnancy and post partum. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2009; 105:46–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Klueger J, Cray D, Kher U, Sieger M. What mother nature teaches us about motherhood. Time. 2000; 155(19):58–60, 62.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Storey AE, Walsh CJ, Quinton RL, Wynne-Edwards KE. Hormonal Correlates of parental responsiveness in new and expectant fathers. Evol Hum Behav. 2000; 21:79–95.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Chodorow NJ. The reproduction of mothering. Berkeley: University of California Press; 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Raymond JG. Women as wombs: reproductive technologies and the battle over women’s freedom. San Francisco: Harper; 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  13. de Marneffe D. Maternal desire: on children, love, and the inner life. New York: Little, Brown, and Company; 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Callahan JC. Reproduction, ethics and the law: feminist perspectives. Bloomington: Indiana University Press; 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Baumeister RF, Catanese KR, Vohs KD. Is there a gender difference in strength of sex drive? Theoretical views, conceptual distinctions, and a review of relevant evidence. Pers Soc Psychol Rev. 2001; 5:242–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Darwin CR. The descent of man, and selection in relation to sex. London: John Murray; 1871.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  17. Shimmin LC, Chang BH-J, Li W-H. Male-driven evolution of DNA sequences. Nature. 1993; 362:745–47.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Singh RS, Kulathinal RJ. Male sex drive and the masculinization of the genome. BioEssays. 2005; 27:518–25.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Rypma CB. Biological bases of the paternal response. Fam Coord. 1976; 25:335–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Berger LM, Carlson MJ, Bzostek SH, Osborne C. Parenting practices of resident fathers: the role of marital and biological ties. J Marriage Fam. 2008; 70:625–39.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Halle C, Dowd T, Fowler C, Rissel K, Hennessy K, MacNevin R, Nelson MA. Supporting fathers in the transition to parenthood. Contemp Nurse. 2008; 31:57–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Brannigan RE. Fertility preservation in adult male cancer patients. In: Woodruff TK, Snyder KA, Eds. Oncofertility: fertility preservation for cancer survivors. New York: Springer; 2007:28–49.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  23. Revel A, Revel-Vick S. Pediatric fertility preservation: is it time to offer testicular tissue cryopreservation? Mol Cell Endocrinol. 2008; 282:143–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. van den Berg H, Repping S, van der Veen F. Parental desire and acceptance of spermatogonial stem cell cryopreservation in boys with cancer. Hum Reprod. 2007; 22:594–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Tschudin S, Bitzer J. Psychological aspects of fertility preservation in men and women affected by cancer and other life-threatening diseases. Hum Reprod Update. 2009; 1:1–11.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Loscalzo MJ, Clark KL. The psychosocial context of cancer-related infertility. In: Woodruff TK, Snyder KA, Eds. Oncofertility: fertility preservation for cancer survivors. New York: Springer; 2007: 180–90.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  27. Evans GD, Fogarty K. The Hidden Benefits of Being an Involved Father. Family, Youth and Community Sciences Department, Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida. http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/HE137. Accessed September 3, 2009.

  28. Arras JD, Blustein J. Reproductive responsibility and long-acting contraceptives. Hastings Cent Rep. 1995; 25:S27–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Cassidy L. That many of us should not parent. Hypatia. 2006; 21:40–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Sohl SJ, Moyer A. Refining the conceptualization of a future-oriented self-regulatory behavior: proactive coping. Pers Individ Dif. 2009; 47:139–44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Snyder CR, Rand KL, King EA, Feldman DB, Woodward JT. “False” hope. J Clin Psychol. 2002; 58:1003–22.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by the Oncofertility Consortium NIH 8UL1DE019587, 5RL1HD058296.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Northwestern University, The Oncofertility Consortium, Chicago, IL, USA

    Shauna L. Gardino

  2. Buehler Center on Aging, Health and Society, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA

    Linda L. Emanuel

Authors
  1. Shauna L. Gardino
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Linda L. Emanuel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shauna L. Gardino .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Northwestern University, Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, 60611-3015, Illinois, USA

    Teresa K. Woodruff

  2. Northwestern University, Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, 60611-3015, Illinois, USA

    Laurie Zoloth

  3. Northwestern University, Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, 60611-3015, Illinois, USA

    Lisa Campo-Engelstein

  4. Northwestern University, Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, 60611-3015, Illinois, USA

    Sarah Rodriguez

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2010 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Gardino, S.L., Emanuel, L.L. (2010). Choosing Life When Facing Death: Understanding Fertility Preservation Decision-Making for Cancer Patients. In: Woodruff, T., Zoloth, L., Campo-Engelstein, L., Rodriguez, S. (eds) Oncofertility. Cancer Treatment and Research, vol 156. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-6518-9_34

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-6518-9_34

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4419-6517-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4419-6518-9

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation