5 Towards an Understanding of Embryo Donation ... 123siblings being raised in another family by their shared genetic parents—
has many parallels to traditional adoption, with Manning ( 2004 : 718)
describing it as ‘the social equivalent’.
It is interesting that, in some texts, ED is directly referred to as
‘embryo adoption’, ‘very early adoption’, or ‘pre-birth adoption’.
Such terms may trace their origins to a Californian infant adoption
agency: Nightlight Christian Adoptions, which in 1997 established
its ‘Snowflakes Embryo Adoption Program’. The key elements of the
Snowflakes model bear a strong resemblance to adoption programmes,
including the completion of home studies for prospective recipients and
the possibility of information exchange between donors and recipients
(Blyth et al. 2011 ). Having said that, research documenting the influ-
ence of adoption metaphors on the uptake of ED has been contradic-
tory. Newton et al. ( 2003 ) and Collard and Kashmeri ( 2011 ) report
that where participants held views congruent with a model of EA, they
were more likely to donate. In Newton et al. ( 2003 ) study, those that
were willing to contemplate donation did not see the act as an anony-
mous, disinterested gift, but wanted to be part of the child’s life by pro-
viding information and being open to possible future contact.
On the other hand, de Lacey (2007a) reports that it was the ‘discard
group’ in her study that related most strongly to the adoption meta-
phor. In other words, it appears that those who regarded ED as adop-
tion rejected it as an option. Seeing the embryos as biologically bonded
by genetics to their organic family unit, and as genetic replica of their
existing children, meant that they were unable to donate them. The lack
of knowledge about where their children were, the inability to ensure
their well-being, and concerns about future contact affected their rejec-
tion of ED (de Lacey 2005 ).
In contrast, de Lacey’s ‘donate group’ drew on, but ultimately
resisted, the adoption metaphor. They described ‘how it did not fit’ (de
Lacey 2007a: 1754), emphasising the gestational experience as impor-
tant. While this group did not deny the genetic link, they minimised it,
reducing it to a ‘mere biological fact’. Instead, they saw gestation, birth,
and the raising of the child as more important for the establishment of
connections between the future child and the recipients, and the recipi-
ents’ ‘ownership’ of the child (de Lacey 2007a). Note, however, that
http://www.ebook3000.com