Advertisement

To Tell or not to Tell? Parents’ Reluctance to Talking About Conceiving Their Children Using Medically Assisted Reproduction

  • Elena FaccioEmail author
  • Antonio Iudici
  • Sabrina Cipolletta
Original Paper
  • 58 Downloads

Abstract

While more and more researchers are investigating the effects of disclosing conceptions achieved through heterologous fertilization, even couples who use homologous medically-assisted reproduction (MAR) often do not tell their relatives and children how they conceived, possibly because they find it embarrassing. The present study explores the perception of stigma, and the reticence of Italian couples resorting to homologous MAR when speaking about conception. Interviews were conducted with 30 participants recruited through a fertility clinic at a public hospital in northern Italy, and through social media and snowball sampling. Content analysis was used to identify respondents’ various attitudes to talking about their MAR experience. Their reluctance to tell their relatives and children about their conceiving experience may reflect, but also perpetuate the social stigma associated with in vitro fertilization. Further research and scientific dissemination campaigns are needed to emphasize the importance of normalizing and sharing these experiences within the family—addressing not only heterologous, but also homologous MAR—especially in the more traditional cultural and legal settings, such as Italy.

Keywords

Medically-assisted reproduction Stigma Disclosure Qualitative research Children 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. Baiocco, R., Santamaria, F., Ioverno, S., Fontanesi, L., Baumgartner, E., Laghi, F., et al. (2015). Lesbian mother families and gay father families in Italy: Family functioning, dyadic satisfaction, and child well-being. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 12(3), 202–212.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13178-015-0185-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bourne, K. (2002). Sometimes it takes three to make a baby: Explaining egg donor conception to young children. East Melbourne: Melbourne IVF.Google Scholar
  3. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.  https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Carmeli, Y. S., & Birenbaum-Carmeli, D. (1994). The predicament of masculinity: Toward understanding the male’s experience of infertility treatments. Sex Roles, 30, 663–679.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Carone, N., Lingiardi, V., Chirumbolo, A., & Baiocco, R. (2018). Italian gay father families formed by surrogacy: Parenting, stigmatization, and children’s psychological adjustment. Developmental Psychology, 54(10), 1904–1916.  https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cipolletta, S., & Faccio, E. (2013). Time experience during the assisted reproductive journey: A phenomenological analysis of Italian couples’ narratives. Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psychology, 31(3), 285–298.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02646838.2013.813627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cook, R. J., & Dickens, B. M. (2014). Reducing stigma in reproductive health. International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics, 125, 89–92.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgo.2014.01.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ellison, M. A., & Hall, J. E. (2003). Social stigma and compounded losses: Quality-of-life issues for multiple-birth families. Fertility and Sterility, 80, 405–414.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0015-0282(03)00659-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ernst, J., Mehnert, A., Dietz, A., Hornemann, B., & Esser, P. (2017). Perceived stigmaization and its impact on quality of life—Results from a large register-based study including breast, colon, prostate and lung cancer patients. BMC Cancer, 17(1), 741.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-017-3742-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Faccio, E. (2011). What works with individuals in a clinical setting? Frontiers in Psychology, 2, 2.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Faccio, E., Bordin, E., & Cipolletta, S. (2013). Transsexual parenthood and new role assumptions. Culture, Health and Sexuality, 15(9), 1055–1070.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13691058.2013.806676.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Faccio, E., & Costa, N. (2013). The presentation of self in everyday prison life: Reading interactions in prison from a dramaturgic point of view. Global Crime, 14(4), 386–403.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17440572.2013.831761.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Faccio, E., Nardin, A., & Cipolletta, S. (2016). Becoming ex-obese: Narrations about identity changes before and after the experience of the bariatric surgery. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 25(11–12), 1713–1720.  https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.13222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Faccio, E., Solarino, M., Vitelli, R., & Cipolletta, S. (2018). Normalisation versus medicalisation of sexual disturbances during menopause: A qualitative research in the Italian context. Sexuality and Culture, 22(2), 445–461.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12119-017-9477-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Flamigni, C., & Borini, A. (2012). He(s)terologous fertilization. Rom: L’asino d’oro.Google Scholar
  16. Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma. Notes on the management of spoiled identity. New York: Simon & Schuster Inc.Google Scholar
  17. Golombok, S. (1996). The European study of assisted reproduction families. Human Reproduction, 11, 2324–2331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Golombok, S., Brewaeys, A., Giavazzi, M. T., Guerra, D., MacCallum, F., & Rust, J. (2002). The European Study of assisted reproduction families: The transition to adolescence. Human Reproduction, 17(3), 830–840.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Golombok, S., & Murray, C. (1999). Social versus biological parenting: Family functioning and the socioemotional development of children conceived by egg or sperm donation. Child Psychology & Psychiatry, 40(4), 519–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Greil, A. L., Slauson-Blevins, K., & McQuillan, J. (2010). The experience of infertility: A review of recent literature. Sociology of Health and Illness.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9566.2009.01213.x.Google Scholar
  21. Iudici, A. (2015). Health promotion in school: Theory, practice and clinical implications. New york: Nova.Google Scholar
  22. Iudici, A., & Verdecchia, M. (2015). Homophobic labeling in the process of identity construction. Sexuality and Culture, 19(4), 737–758.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12119-015-9287-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Landau, R. (1998). Secrecy, anonimity and deception in Donor Insemination, A genetic, psycho social and ethical critique. Social Work in Health Care, 28(1), 75–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. MacCallum, F., & Keely, S. (2008). Embryo donation families: A follow-up in middle childhood. Journal of Family Psychology, 22(6), 799–808.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Murray, C., MacCallum, F., & Golombok, S. (2006). Egg donation parents and their children: Follow-up at age 12 years. Fertility and Sterility, 85(3), 610–618.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2005.08.051.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Niederberger, C., Pellicer, A., Cohen, J., Gardner, D. K., Palermo, G. D., O’Neill, C. L., et al. (2018). Forty years of IVF. Fertility and Sterility, 110(2), 185–324.e5.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2018.06.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Papp, P. (1993). The worm in the bud: Secrets between parents and children. In E. Imber-Black (Ed.), Secrets in families and family therapy (pp. 66–85). New York: Norton.Google Scholar
  28. Riezzo, I., Neri, M., Bello, S., Pomara, C., & Turilazzi, E. (2016). Italian law on medically assisted reproduction: Do women’s autonomy and health matter? BMC Womens Health, 16, 44.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s12905-016-0324-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Ritchie, J., & Spencer, L. (1994). Qualitative data analysis for applied policy research. In A. Bryman & R. G. Burgess (Eds.), Analyzing qualitative data. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  30. Slade, P., O’Neill, C. O., Simpson, A. J., & Lashen, H. (2007). The relationship between perceived stigma, disclosure patterns, support and distress in new attendees at an infertility clinic. Human Reproduction, 22(8), 2309–2317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Smart, L., & Wegner, D. M. (2000). The hidden costs of hidden stigma. In T. F. Heatherton, R. E. Kleck, M. R. Hebl, & J. G. Hull (Eds.), The social psychology of stigma (pp. 220–242). New York: Guildford Press.Google Scholar
  32. Van Balen, F. (1993). Child-rearing following in vitro fertilization. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 37, 687–693.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Whiteford, L. M., & Gonzalez, L. (1995a). Stigma: The hidden burden of infertility. Social Science and Medicine, 40, 27–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Whiteford, L. M., & Gonzalez, L. (1995b). Stigma: The hidden burden of infertility. Social Science and Medicine, 40, 27–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. WHO. (2001). Current practices and controversies in assisted reproduction. Report of a meeting on
“Medical, Ethical and Social Aspects of Assisted Reproduction” held at WHO Headquarters in Geneva, Switzerland
17–21 September 2001.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Philosophy, Sociology, Education and Applied PsychologyUniversity of PaduaPaduaItaly
  2. 2.Department of General PsychologyUniversity of PadovaPaduaItaly

Personalised recommendations