The psychology of assisted reproduction - Or psychology assisting its reproduction?

Australian Psychologist

Volumn 34, Issue 1, 1999, Pages 38-44

  Walker, Iain ^a   Broderick, Pia ^a  

^a MURDOCH UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0039572117     PISSN: 00050067     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/00050069908257423     Document Type: Article

References (75)

1. Australian Psychological Society. (1994). Membership matters.
2. Baran, A., & Pannor, R. (1989). Lethal secrets. New York: Warner.
3. Bernard, C.R., Ward, C., & Knoppers, B.M. (1992). "Best interests of the child" exposed: A portrait of Quebec custody and protection law. Canadian Journal of Family Law, 11, 57-149.
4. Bolton, V., Golombok, S., Cook, R., & Rust, J. (1991). A comparative study of attitudes towards donor insemination and egg donation in recipients, potential donors, and the public. Journal of Psychosomatic and Obstetric Gynaecology, 12, 217-228.
5. Bowman, M.C., & Saunders, D.M. (1994). Community attitudes to maternal age and pregnancy after assisted reproductive technology: Too old at 50 years? Human Reproduction, 9, 167-171.
6. Broderick, P., & Walker, I. (1995a, September 26-30). Donor gametes and embryos: Who wants to know and why? Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Australian Psychological Society, Perth.
7. Broderick, P., & Walker, I. (1995b). Donors, donations, and dilemmas. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Fertility Society of Australia, Melbourne.
8. Broderick, P., & Walker, I. (1995c). Information access and donated gametes: How much do we know about who wants to know what? Human Reproduction, 10, 3338-3341.
9. Broderick, P., & Walker, I. (1996a, August). Blood donors, gamete donors, and non-donors: Motivation to donate and attachment to donation. Paper presented at the XXVI International Congress of Psychology, Montreal, Canada.
10. Broderick, P., & Walker, I. (1996b, April). Gamete and embryo donation and adoption: A comparison. Paper presented at the 9th Australasian Human Development Conference, Perth.
11. Clarkson, A. (1996). Who should be granted access to assisted reproductive technologies? An inquiry into attitudes and pronatalistic beliefs. Unpublished Bachelor of Psychology thesis, Murdoch University.
12. Daniels, K.R. (1987). Semen donors in New Zealand: Their characteristics and attitudes. Child Reproduction and Fertility, 5, 177-190.
13. Daniels, K.R. (1988). Attitudes to donor insemination and IVF: A community perspective. New Zealand Social Work Review, 1, 4-10.
14. Daniels, K.R. (1989). Semen donors: Their motivations and attitudes to their offspring. Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psychology, 7, 121-127.
15. Daniels, K.R. (1993). Infertility counselling: The need for a psychosocial perspective. British Journal of Social Work, 23, 501-515.
16. Daniels, K.R. (1994). Adoption and donor insemination: Factors influencing couples' choices. Child Welfare League of America, 73, 5-14.
17. Daniels, K.R., & Lewis, G.M. (1996). Donor insemination: The gifting and selling of semen. Social Sciences and Medicine, 42, 1521-1536.
18. Daniels, K.R., & Stjerna, I. (1993). Infertility: The social work contribution. Socionomen, 6, 41-46.
19. Daniels, K.R., & Taylor, K. (1993). Secrecy and openness in donor insemination. Politics and the Life Sciences, 12, 155-170.
20. Davey, S., & Broderick, P. (1995, September 26-30). Attitudes of tertiary educated Australians to access to reproductive technology. Paper presented at the 30th Annual Conference of the Australian Psychological Society, Perth.
21. Dawes, R. (1994). House of cards: Psychology and psychotherapy built on myth. New York: Free Press.
22. Dineen, T. (1996). Manufacturing victims: What the psychology industry is doing to people. Montreal: Robert Davies.
23. Edelmann, R., & Connolly, K.J. (1989). The impact of infertility and infertility investigations: Four case illustrations. Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psychology, 7, 113-119.
24. Greenfeld, D., Mazure, C., Haseltine, F., & De Cherney, A. (1984). The role of the social worker in the in-vitro fertilization program. Social Work in Health Care, 10, 71-79.
25. Haimes, E. (1993). Secrecy and openness in donor insemination: A sociological comment on Daniels and Taylor. Politics and the Life Sciences, 12, 178-180.
26. Handelsman, D.J., Dunn, S.M., Conway, A.J., & Jansen, R.P.S. (1985). Psychological and attitudinal profiles in donors for artificial insemination. Fertility and Sterility, 43, 95-101.
27. Hill, J.L. (1991). What does it mean to be a "parent"? The claims of biology as the basis for parental rights. New York University Law Review, 66, 353-420.
28. Holbrook, S. (1990). Adoption, infertility, and the new reproductive technologies: Problems and prospects for social work and welfare policy. Social Work, 35, 333-337.
29. Holmes, H.B. (1993). Openness, fatherhood, and responsibility: A feminist analysis. Politics and the Life Sciences, 12, 180-182.
30. Human Reproductive Technology Act (1993), State Government of Western Australia.
31. Humphrey, M., & Humphrey, H. (1986). A fresh look at genealogical bewilderment. British Journal of Medical Psychology, 59, 133-140.
32. Humphrey, M., & Humphrey, H. (1987). Marital relationships in couples seeking donor insemination. Journal of Biosocial Science, 19, 209-219.
33. Humphrey, M., Humphrey, H., & Ainsworth-Smith, I. (1991). Screening couples for parenthood by donor insemination. Social Sciences and Medicine, 32, 273-278.
34. Interim Reproductive Technology Council. (1988). Reproductive technology working party's report. Perth, WA: Ministry of Health.
35. Jequier, A. (1985). Non-therapy related pregnancies in consorts of a group of men with obstructive azoospermia. Andrologia, 17, 6-8.
36. Karpel, M.A. (1980). Family secrets: I. Conceptual and ethical issues in the relational context; II. Ethical and practical considerations in therapeutic management. Family Process, 19, 295-306.
37. Keeping, D. (1994). The control of reproductive technology: Plenary address. 13th Annual Meeting of the Fertility Society of Australia, Brisbane.
38. Kelly, A.E., & McKillop, K.J. (1996). Consequences of revealing personal secrets. Psychological Bulletin, 120, 450-465.
39. Klock, S.C. (1993). Psychological aspects of donor insemination. Psychological Issues in Infertility, 4, 455-469.
40. Klock, S.C., Jacob, M.C., & Maier, D. (1994). A prospective study of donor insemination patients: Secrecy, privacy, and disclosure. Fertility and Sterility, 62, 477-484.
41. Klock, S.C., & Maier, D. (1991). Psychological factors related to donor insemination. Fertility and Sterility, 56, 489-495.
42. Knoppers, B.M. (1993). Donor insemination: Children as In Concreto or In Abstracto subjects of rights? Politics and the Life Sciences, 12, 182-184.
43. Lansac, J. (1993). One father only: Donor insemination and CECOS in France. Politics and the Life Sciences, 12, 185-186.
44. Lauritzen, P. (1993). DI's dirty little secret. Politics and the Life Sciences, 12, 188-189.
45. Ley, P. (1992). Reproductive technology: What can we learn from the adoption experience? In P. Swain & S. Swain (Eds.), To search for self (pp. 100-110). Sydney: Federation.
46. Liljestrand, P. (1990). Rhetoric and reason: Donor insemination politics in Sweden. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California at San Francisco.
47. Lumley, J. (1986). The proposed Victorian gamete register. Clinical Reproduction and Fertility, 4, 39-43.
48. Mahlstedt, P.P. (1991). Commentary articles: Special issue on psychology and infertility. Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psychology, 9, 48-59.
49. Mahlstedt, P.P., & Greenfeld, D.A. (1989). Assisted reproductive technology with donor gametes: The need for patient preparation. Fertility and Sterility, 52, 880-914.
50. Mayne, R. (1994, August 9). The foetal blow. The Bulletin, pp. 32-33.
51. McDaniel, S.H. (1994). Within-family reproductive technologies as a solution to childlessness due to infertility: Psychological issues and interventions. Journal of Clinical Psychology in Medical Settings, 1, 301-309.
52. Melton, G.B. (1996). The child's right to a family environment: Why children's rights and family values are incompatible. American Psychologist, 51, 1234-1238.
53. Mills, C.W. (1959). The sociological imagination. New York: Oxford University Press.
54. Moscovici, S. (1972). Society and theory in social psychology. In J. Israel & H. Tajfel (Eds.), The context of social psychology: A critical assessment (pp. 17-68). London: Academic Press.
55. National Bioethics Consultative Committee. (1988). Access to information: An analogy between adoption and the use of gamete donation. Canberra: Author.
56. National Bioethics Consultative Committee. (1989). Reproductive technology. Canberra: Author.
57. Paulson, R.J., & Sauer, M.V. (1991). Counselling the infertile couple: When enough is enough. Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 78, 462-464.
58. Rose, N. (1989). Governing the soul: The shaping of the private self. London: Routledge.
59. Sants, H.J. (1964). Genealogical bewilderment in children with substitute parents. British Journal of Medical Psychology, 37, 133-141.
60. Shenfield, F., & Steele, S.J. (1997). What are the effects of anonymity and secrecy on the welfare of the child in gamete donation? Human Reproduction, 12, 392-395.
61. Snowden, C. (1994). What makes a mother? Interviews with women involved in egg donation and surrogacy. Birth, 21, 77-84.
62. Snowden, R., & Mitchell, G.D. (1981). The artificial family: A consideration of artificial insemination by donor. London: Allen & Unwin.
63. Sorosky, A.D., Baran, A., & Pannor, R. (1975). Identity conflicts in adoptees. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 45, 18-27.
64. Sverne, T. (1983). Children conceived by artificial insemination. Stockholm: Government of Sweden.
65. Triseliotis, J. (1973). In search of origins: The experiences of adopted people. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
66. Triseliotis, J. (1993). Donor insemination and the child. Politics and the Life Sciences, 12, 195-197.
67. Turner, C. (1993). A call for openness in donor insemination. Politics and the Life Sciences, 12, 197-199.
68. Tyler, J.P.P., Nicholas, M.K., Crockett, N.G., & Driscoll, G. (1983). Some attitudes to artificial insemination by donor. Clinical Reproduction and Fertility, 2, 151-160.
69. Walker, A., Gregson, S., & McLaughlin, E. (1987). Attitudes towards donor insemination: A post Warnock survey. Human Reproduction, 2, 745-750.
70. Walker, I., Broderick, P., & Bowen, P. (1998). Genealogical bewilderment: The career of a concept. Manuscript in preparation.
71. Warnock, M.A. (1984). Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Human Fertilisation and Embryology. London: Department of Health and Social Security.
72. Weaver, S.M., Clifford, E., Gordon, A.G., Hay, D.M., & Robinson, J. (1993). A follow-up study of successful IVF/GIFT couples: Social-emotional well-being and adjustment to parenthood. Journal of Psychosomatic Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 14(Suppl. 5), 5-16.
73. Western, J.C. (1994). Licensing parents: Can we prevent child abuse and neglect? New York: Plenum.
74. Western Australian Human Reproductive Technology Council. (1995). Questions and answers about the donation of human reproductive material. Perth, WA: Health Department of Western Australia.
75. Winkler, R.C., & Midford, S.M. (1986). Biological identity in adoption, artificial insemination by donor (AID) and the new birth technologies. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 11, 43-48.