Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Contributors
- Acknowledgements
- 1 Introduction
- 2 The biology of donation
- 3 Ethics for reproductive donation
- 4 Parenthood – whose right is it anyway?
- 5 Reproductive donation
- 6 UK and US perspectives on the regulation of gamete donation
- 7 Gamete and embryo donation
- 8 The legal and ethical regulation of transnational donation
- 9 Balancing ethical criteria for the recruitment of gamete donors
- 10 Challenges in intra-family donation
- 11 ARTs and the single parent
- 12 Reproductive donation and justice for gay and lesbian couples
- 13 Is disclosure in the best interests of children conceived by donation?
- 14 Identifiable donors and siblings
- 15 Ethical issues in embryo donation
- 16 Reproduction through surrogacy
- 17 Some conclusions regarding the interaction of normative and descriptive elements in reproductive donation
- Index
- References
14 - Identifiable donors and siblings
implications for the future
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 August 2012
Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Contributors
- Acknowledgements
- 1 Introduction
- 2 The biology of donation
- 3 Ethics for reproductive donation
- 4 Parenthood – whose right is it anyway?
- 5 Reproductive donation
- 6 UK and US perspectives on the regulation of gamete donation
- 7 Gamete and embryo donation
- 8 The legal and ethical regulation of transnational donation
- 9 Balancing ethical criteria for the recruitment of gamete donors
- 10 Challenges in intra-family donation
- 11 ARTs and the single parent
- 12 Reproductive donation and justice for gay and lesbian couples
- 13 Is disclosure in the best interests of children conceived by donation?
- 14 Identifiable donors and siblings
- 15 Ethical issues in embryo donation
- 16 Reproduction through surrogacy
- 17 Some conclusions regarding the interaction of normative and descriptive elements in reproductive donation
- Index
- References
Summary
Introduction
The long-standing ethical and policy debate about whether gamete donors should remain anonymous or be identifiable has been conducted with very limited empirical evidence about the implications of open-identity donation for those involved. While there is a growing consensus that the use of identifiable donors is preferable to the secrecy that has traditionally surrounded gamete donation, there is uncertainty around the consequences of policy decisions to remove donor anonymity, particularly regarding potential outcomes should donor offspring wish to meet their donor or other families created using their donor’s gametes. Open-identity donation is now available and is sometimes mandatory in several countries around the world, although it will be some years before the social effects of this regulatory change are realized. In the UK, for example, the entitlement of individuals conceived using donated gametes from 1 April 2005 onwards to receive identifying information about their donor at age 18 will not come into effect until 2023.
There are various types of identifiable donors. Clinics may use ‘identity-release’ donors whose identifying information is accessible once the child conceived with their gametes reaches a specified age; information may or may not be available to parents before this time. Alternatively, in instances where children have been conceived using anonymously donated gametes, the donor may choose to revoke their anonymity and make their identity known at a later stage. Lastly, the donor’s identity may be known from the time of the child’s conception, as is the case when prospective parents ask friends or relatives to donate their gametes, a practice that appears to be on the increase since the removal of donor anonymity. This chapter is primarily concerned with the first two types of open-identity donation, that is identity-release donation and formerly anonymous donation, and will focus on donations that occur within the context of the clinic (for a discussion of intra-familial donation, see Vayena and Golombok, Chapter 10).
Information
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Reproductive DonationPractice, Policy and Bioethics, pp. 250 - 269Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2012
References
1996 Donor insemination programmes with personal donors: issues of secrecyHuman Reproduction 11 2558CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2000 Counselling couples and donors for oocyte donation: the decision to use either known or anonymous oocytesHuman Reproduction 15 476CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
1997 Donor insemination: Dutch parents’ opinions about confidentiality and donor anonymity and the emotional adjustment of their childrenHuman Reproduction 12 1591CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2005 Anonymous or identity-registered sperm donors? A study of Dutch recipients’ choicesHuman Reproduction 20 820CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
1995 A survey of semen donation: phase II – the view of the donorsHuman Reproduction 10 951CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
1995 Disclosure of donor insemination: parental attitudesAmerican Journal of Orthopsychiatry 65 549CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2002 Lessons from a recent adoption study to identify some of the service needs of, and issues for, donor offspring wanting to know about their donorsHuman Fertilization 5 6CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
1996 Openness of information in the use of donor gametes: developments in New ZealandJournal of Reproductive and Infant Psychology 14 57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
1984 ‘Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Human Fertilization and Embryology’LondonHMSOGoogle Scholar
1998 Motivation, attitudes and experience of donation: a follow-up of women donating eggs in assisted conception treatmentJournal of Community and Applied Social Psychology 8 2733.0.CO;2-Q>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2001 The kin in the gene: the medicalization of family and kinship in American societyCurrent Anthropology 42 235Google ScholarPubMed
2009 Gamete donation: parents’ experiences of searching for their child’s donor siblings and donorHuman Reproduction 24 505CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2001 Beneath the rhetoric: the role of rights in the practice of non-anonymous gamete donationBioethics 15 473CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2006 Potential sperm donors’, recipients’ and their partners’ opinions towards the release of identifying information in Western AustraliaHuman Reproduction 21 3022CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
1996 Children: the European study of assisted reproduction families: family functioning and child developmentHuman Reproduction 11 2324CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2002 Families with children conceived by donor insemination: a follow-up at age twelveChild Development 73 952CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2004 Parenting infants conceived by gamete donationJournal of Family Psychology 18 443CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2000 Disclosure of donor insemination to the child: the impact of Swedish legislation on couples’ attitudesHuman Reproduction 15 2052CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2004 Disclosure decisions among known and anonymous oocyte donation recipientsFertility and Sterility 81 1565CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
1998 Do attitudes towards disclosure in donor oocyte recipients predict the use of anonymous versus direct donation?Fertility and Sterility 70 1009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2000 Donor insemination: telling children about their originsPsychology and Psychiatry Review 5 157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2009 The experiences of adolescents and adults conceived by sperm donation: comparisons by age of disclosure and family typeHuman Reproduction 24 1909CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2010 Sperm and oocyte donors’ experiences of anonymous donation and subsequent contact with their donor offspringHuman Reproduction 26 638CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2010 Offsprings’ experiences of searching for and contacting their donor siblings and donorReproductive BioMedicine Online 20 523CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2006 A new Dutch law regulating provision of identifying information of donors to offspring: background, content and impactHuman Reproduction 21 852CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2010 Looking back: egg donors’ retrospective evaluations of their motivations, expectations, and experiences during their first donation cycleFertility and Sterility 93 455CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2004 Genetic connection and relationships in narratives of donor-assisted conceptionAustralian Journal of Emerging Technologies and Society 2 1Google Scholar
2011 Anonymity and secrecy options of recipient couples and donors, and ethnic origins influence in three types of oocyte donationHuman Reproduction 26 382CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2006 Helping parents to tell their children about the use of donor insemination (DI) and determining their opinions about open-identity sperm donationActa Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica 85 78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2000 To tell or not to tell: what parents think about telling their children that they were born following donor inseminationJournal Psychosomatic Obstetrics and Gynecology 21 193CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2004 Offspring created as a result of donor insemination: a study of family relationships, child adjustment, and disclosureFertility and Sterility 82 172CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2005 School-aged children of donor insemination: a study of parents’ disclosure patternsHuman Reproduction 20 810CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
1998 The disclosure decision: concerns and issues of parents and children conceived through donor inseminationAmerican Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 178 1165CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2009 Systematic review of oocyte donation: investigating attitudes, motivations and experiencesHuman Reproduction 5 499Google Scholar
1999 Telling the story: parents’ scripts for donor offspringHuman Reproduction 14 1392CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
1989 Attitudinal survey of sperm donors to an artificial insemination clinicJournal of Reproductive Medicine 34 362Google Scholar
2010 Sperm donor limits that control for the “relative” risk associated with the use of open-identity donorsHuman Reproduction 5 1089CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2008 Contact among families who share the same sperm donorFertility and Sterility 90 33CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2007 Open-identity donor insemination in United States: is it on the rise?Fertility and Sterility 88 231CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2003 Choosing identity-release sperm donors: the parents’ perspective 13–18 years laterHuman Reproduction 18 1115CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2005 Adolescents with open-identity sperm donors: reports from 12–17 year oldsHuman Reproduction 20 239CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
1992 The personality and motivation of semen donors: a comparison with oocyte donorsHuman Reproduction 7 575CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2010 Family secrets: law and understandings of openness in everyday relationshipsJournal of Social Policy 38 551CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2008 Human semen donors in Germany: a study exploring motivations and attitudesHuman Reproduction 23 2415CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2000 What does it mean to be a donor offspring? The identity experiences of adults conceived by donor insemination and the implications for counselling and therapyHuman Reproduction 15 2041CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2001 An attempt to reconstruct children’s donor concept: a comparison between children’s and lesbian parents’ attitudes towards donor anonymityHuman Reproduction 16 2019CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2003 Why do children want to know more about the donor? The experiences of youngsters raised in lesbian familiesJournal of Psychosomatic Obstetrics and Gynecology 24 31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2008 Persons in prospect: II. the gift of lifePhilosophy and Public Affairs 36 245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
1997 Identity, genealogy and the social family: the case of donor inseminationInternational Journal of Law, Policy and the Family 11 270CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Accessibility standard: Unknown
Why this information is here
This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.Accessibility Information
Accessibility compliance for the PDF of this book is currently unknown
and may be updated in the future.
- 12
- Cited by