Search

There is a growing need for healthcare professionals to discuss fertility preservation options with trans and non-binary people before commencing medical transition as part of informed consent-based models of care. In this article, we adapt the Five-A framework of healthcare access to examine fertility preservation information and services. To do so, we present an analysis of data from Counting Ourselves , the first comprehensive national survey in Aotearoa New Zealand of trans and non-binary people's health and the first study exploring their access to cryopreservation information and services. Among 419 participants who had received gender-affirming hormones or surgery, 33.7% received information about options for fertility preservation and 15.8% accessed fertility preservation services. Findings from the study indicate the need for greater understanding of trans and non-binary people's desire for genetically related children, and what type of information and form of delivery would be most helpful to ensure equitable outcomes in relation to decision-making around fertility and future family-building.

Social scientists have recently diverged from mainstream bioethical discussion on the topic of the medical use of human biological materials for therapeutic, reproductive and research purposes. Rather than justifying the donation and provision of biological materials solely in terms of alleviating physical, psychological and social suffering, saving or enhancing life, and advancing biomedical knowledge, this work looks beyond humanist bioethics to take a social justice approach to questions of the life sciences. In this article, I draw insight from these accounts to propose an approach to the sociology of live kidney and breastmilk donation that is situated at the interface of the new sociology of morality and affect studies. To do so, I examine the moral economy of tissue provision with respect to its organisation around the discourse of altruism and the gift. I then turn to recent work on tissue economies, which are in the business of creating and producing biovalue, to discuss the manipulation of affect and the entanglement of new forms of bio-intimacy in the production and reproduction of somatic life. The aim of the article was to contribute to the study of the sociology of donation as a substantive field of specialisation within sociology., (© 2018 Foundation for the Sociology of Health & Illness.)

Context and Objective: Living kidney donation accounts for approximately half of all kidney transplantation in many countries and is central to health policy focused on increasing organ supply. However, little examination of the economic consequences of living kidney donation has been undertaken from the perspective of donors themselves. This article documents living kidney donors' views regarding recompense and payment for organ donation, based on their experience., Participants: Twenty-five living kidney donors from New Zealand participated in this study., Methods: This qualitative study, based on thematic analysis, uses semi-structured in-depth interviews to examine the experiences of living kidney donors. Themes were organized around altruism and the 'gift', perceptions of shared corporeality and identity, and donor support., Results: Most participants agreed the donation process was costly in terms of time and money. Many incurred personal costs, and some experienced financial hardship. All the participants viewed financial hardship as a barrier to organ donation and favoured recompense for direct and indirect costs. Most did not support payment for organs, and none supported commercialization., Discussion and Conclusions: The findings show that framing organ donation as a 'gift' can stymie discussion about reciprocity, remuneration and exchange, making talk about financial recompense difficult. Financial well-being, nonetheless, has implications for the ability to care for self and others post-operatively. We conclude that the economic consequences for living kidney donors in jurisdictions where recompense for direct and indirect costs is insufficient are unfair. Review of financial assistance for live organ donors is therefore recommended., (© 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

The "gift of life" metaphor is used to promote organ donation where commercialization is prohibited. In this article, we explore how multiple parties involved in organ transfer procedures think of gift terminology by drawing on interview data with transplantation specialists, organ transplant recipients, living directed donors and living nondirected donors. The interviews took place across New Zealand between October 2008 and May 2012, in participants' homes and hospital workplaces. The interviews were transcribed verbatim, coded manually, and thematically analyzed. Although gift language is often viewed as clear-cut, the gift trope has multiple meanings for different constituent and cultural groups, ranging from positive descriptors to obscuring and romanticizing the complexities of transplantation processes. To account for these multiple perspectives, we suggest new ethical models to capture the nuanced phenomenon of organ transfer in ways that recognize the full range of donation and reception experiences., (© The Author(s) 2014.)