130 S. Goedeke and K. Daniels
not wish to discard), and recipients the opportunity to attempt to have
children. Applegarth ( 2006 ), drawing on social exchange theory, like-
wise suggests that ED may be regarded as a relationship of reciprocal
social exchange where both parties benefit. Such views potentially offer
a greater balance of power between donors and recipients, with fewer
obligations and counter-obligations evoked. Indeed, in this study, sev-
eral donors and recipients saw themselves as working together towards
shared goals of finding solutions for embryos, as well as family-building.
While drawing distinctions between the embryos and cells or prop-
erty, several donors and recipients also emphasised that embryos, by
their biological and genetic nature, could not be considered entities
that were separable from the people who created them. As Shaw ( 2007 ,
2008 ) argues, the gifting of bodily donor material is complex because
it may be seen as inalienable. She suggests that in the context of organ
donation, bodily material is not thought of as property. Even if an organ
is ‘given away’, it remains connected to the donor, whose subjectivity
lives on through the donated material in some way. The donated organ
is more than a gift. Similarly, in this study embryos were seen as entities
that could not, in the traditional sense of the word, be gifted—just as
they could also not be ‘owned’. Instead, embryos were seen as biological
material that, by virtue of their origin from the donors, and particularly
by virtue of the embryos’ nature as genetic blueprints, could never be
entirely separated from their progenitors. Again, this concept was drawn
on by both donors and recipients to regard ED as a joint way of valuing
biological genetic material, as well as building extended families, as is
discussed next.
ED as Building Extended Families
While donors were clear that they were not the child’s parents, they used
family terms or roles, such as aunts, uncles, in-laws and godparents, to
describe their relationship to the child. However, the children in the
two families (donor and recipient) were frequently referred to directly as
(full) brothers and sisters. Most recipients similarly drew on such terms
to describe the donors’ role and relationship to their child/ren. Using