Correction: Receiving, or ‘Adopting’, Donated Embryos to Have Children: Parents Narrate and Draw Kinship Boundaries

The authors wish to make the following corrections to this paper published in Genealogy (Tasker et al., 2018), reflecting regrettable misrepresentation of one research participant’s experience.

(1).

In Table 1, page 6, it states that participant Anne was still trying for an IVF pregnancy with her husband and the same information is stated in the text below the table; however, this is not the case. The statement on page 6 that “Prior to receiving donated embryos one couple had first tried to conceive their own children and then tried IVF with their own gametes; in fact Anne and her husband were still trying to conceive using IVF”” is similarly incorrect. The following information should be deleted from the table: “+ still trying for an IVF pregnancy with her husband”. The statement on page 6 should be replaced with “Prior to receiving donated embryos one couple—Anne and her husband - had first tried to conceive their own children and then tried IVF with their own gametes”.

(2).

On page 15 the sentences “. Sometimes Anne thought: “wait, she or he is not my genetic child”. The same thought bothered Anne when anyone casually commented upon a physical resemblance between her and her children. Anne also still desired to have genetically related children with her husband and they were on yet another IVF cycle using their own gametes when Anne was interviewed. Nonetheless, Anne was adamant that she and her husband could never supplant their embryo-donated children with a genetically related child: “I think there’s still like a sense of loss that I don’t have genetic children but-, like I would never trade what I have now” should be replaced with “Sometimes Anne thought: “wait, she or he is not my genetic child”. The same thought occurred to Anne when anyone casually commented upon a physical resemblance between her and her children. Anne was adamant that she and her husband could never supplant their embryo-donated children with a genetically related child: “I think there’s still like a sense of loss that I don’t have genetic children but-, like I would never trade what I have now”.

(3).

On page 13, it states that Anne, along with two other participants, “could not ignore the presence of the donors in their lives.” (“Although two recipient families had little contact with their donor family, both Ella and Jamie and also Anne could not ignore the presence of the donors in their lives.”) This statement is inaccurate with respect to Anne and should be replaced with “Although Ella and Jamie had little contact with their donor family, they could not ignore the presence of the donors in their lives. They had never met the donor couple and had never had a contact with them outside of agency-mediated contact.”

(4).

On page 13/14, the sentences “Anne said that she had initially wanted a “non-open donation”. Furthermore, Anne still did not like the open-contact relationship, which had been set up largely upon the instigation of the donor couple. Anne said she had worried about their excessive involvement into her parenting” should read: “Anne said that she had initially wanted a “non-open donation”, but then learnt more about the process and realized that open donation is in the best interests of children. Her family and the donor family gradually and mutually evolved to more frequent and open contact as the years passed. Anne said she had initially worried about their excessive involvement into her parenting”.

(5).

On Page 14, the sentences “’Interviewer: Yeah but actually your experience has been different? Anne: Yes, but initially if you just start embarking on this thing you don’t know that’” will be added between the third paragraph and the fourth. And the sentence “Nonetheless, Anne felt she had to represent the donor family on her family map despite her reservations. Graphically, Anne included the donor family in her map but offset to one side. Furthermore, Anne’s children were only directly linked to Poppy, the donor family’s daughter, and not directly linked to their genetic parents.” shall be replaced with “Graphically, Anne included the donor family in her map but offset to one side. Only Anne’s children were directly linked to Poppy, the donor family’s daughter, and not directly linked to their genetic parents.” For in the discussion of Anne’s family map, the statement that Anne included the donor family in her family map despite her reservations is inaccurate.

(6).

On p. 15, the sentence “However, in other respects Anne felt somewhat isolated and on the margins of the wider Christian values “family” concept as fostered by the embryo adoption agency: “I don’t participate very often [in agency activities] it’s very, very Christian, so people are like, erm, prayers and God bless … we go to church on the weekends, but it’s a little bit over the top for me” should read “However, in other respects Anne felt less invested in the wider Christian values “family” concept as fostered by the embryo adoption agency: “I don’t participate very often [in agency activities] it’s very, very Christian, so people are like, erm, prayers and God bless … we go to church on the weekends, but it’s a little bit over the top for me”. Anne’s engagement with Christianity is misrepresented. It is more accurate to say that she felt less invested in (versus isolated and on the margins of) “the wider Christian values ‘family’ concept as fostered by the embryo adoption agency.”

We apologize to readers of Genealogy for any inconvenience. The changes do not affect the scientific results. The manuscript will be updated and the original will remain online on the article webpage, with a reference to this correction.