Is blood really thicker than water? Assisted reproduction and its impact on our thinking about family

Journal of Psychosomatic Obstetrics and Gynecology

Volumn 26, Issue 4, 2005, Pages 265-270

  Daniels, K ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CANTERBURY   (New Zealand)

Author keywords

Assisted human reproduction; Biopsychosocial; Donor insemination; Family building; Genetic parents; Information sharing

Indexed keywords

ARTIFICIAL INSEMINATION; FAMILY PLANNING; FEMALE INFERTILITY; GAMETE; GENETIC TRAIT; GOVERNMENT; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HEALTH PERSONNEL ATTITUDE; HUMAN; MEDICAL INFORMATION; MEDICAL RESEARCH; PARENT; PROGENY; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; REPRODUCTION; REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH; REVIEW; SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY; STIGMA; ANXIETY; ARTICLE; ATTITUDE; CHILD PARENT RELATION; FAMILY; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION;

ANXIETY; ATTITUDE; DISCLOSURE; FAMILY; HUMANS; INSEMINATION, ARTIFICIAL, HETEROLOGOUS; PARENT-CHILD RELATIONS;

EID: 33645779060     PISSN: 0167482X     EISSN: 17438942     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/01674820500109180     Document Type: Review

References (33)

1. Lalos A. Breaking bad news concerning infertility. Human Reproduction 1999;14(3):581-585.
2. Daniels KR. Does assisted reproduction make an impact on the identity and self-image of infertile couples? Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics 1999;16(2):57-59.
3. Mahlstedt P. Psychological issues of infertility and assisted reproductive technology. Urologic Clinics of North America 1994;21(3):557-566.
4. Bailey K. Sociology and the new systems theory. Albany: State University of New York Press; 1994.
5. Daniels KR. Toward a family-building approach to donor insemination. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology Canada 2002;24(1):17-21.
6. Daniels KR, Thorn P. Sharing information with donor insemination offspring. Human Reproduction 2001;16(9):1792-1796.
7. Eichler M. The construction of technologically-mediated families. Journal of Comparative Family Studies 1996;27(2):281-308.
8. Golombok S. New families, old values: considerations regarding the welfare of the child. Human Reproduction 1998;13(9):2324-2347.
9. Shenfield F. Privacy versus disclosure in gamete donation: a clash of interest, of duties, or an exercise in responsibility? Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics 1997;14(7):371-373.
10. Daniels KR. The controversy regarding privacy versus disclosure among patients using donor gametes in assisted reproductive technology. Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics 1997;14(7):373-375.
11. Klock SC. The controversy surrounding privacy or disclosure among donor gamete recipients. Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics 1997;14(7):377-381.
12. Weil E. Privacy and disclosure: the psychological impact on gamete donors and recipients in assisted reproduction. Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics 1997;14(7):369-371.
13. Finkler K, Skrzynia C, Evans JP. The new genetics and its consequences for family, kinship, medicine and medical genetics. Social Science and Medicine 2003;57(3):403-412.
14. Giddens A. Modernity and self-identity: self and society in the late modern age. Cambridge: Polity; 1991.
15. Robertson JA. Assisted reproductive technology and the family. Hastings Law Journal 1996;47:911-933.
16. Goffman E. Stigma: notes on the management of spoiled identity. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall; 1963.
17. Thorn P, Daniels KR. A group work approach to family-building by donor insemination: empowering the marginalized. Human Fertility 2003;6:46-50.
18. Leiblum SR, Aviv AL. Disclosure issues and decisions of couples who conceived via donor insemination. Journal of Psychosomatic Obstetrics and Gynecology 1997;18:292-300.
19. Blyth E. Secrets and lies: barriers to the exchange of genetic origins information following donor assisted conception. Adoption and Fostering 1999;23(1):49-58.
20. Daniels KR, Lewis GM, Gillett WR. Telling DI offspring about their conception: the nature of couples' decision making. Social Science & Medicine 1995;40(9):1213-1220.
21. Gillett WR, Daniels KR, Herbison GP. Feelings of couples who have had a child by donor insemination: the degree of congruence. Journal of Psychosomatic, Obstetrics and Gynecology 1996;17:135-142.
22. Lycett E, Daniels KR, Curson R, Golombok S. Offspring created as a result of donor insemination: a study of family relationships, child adjustment, and disclosure. Fertility and Sterility 2004;82(1):172-179.
23. Brewaeys A. Donor insemination, the impact on family and child development. Journal of Psychosomatic Obstetrics and Gynecology 1996;17:1-13.
24. Daniels KR. Toward a family-building approach to donor insemination. J. Obstet Gynaecol Canada. 2002;24(1):17-21.
25. Daniels KR. Building a family: with the assistance of donor insemination. Palmerston North, NZ: Dunmore Press; 2004.
26. Finegold WJ. Artificial insemination. Springfield, Illinois: Charles C Thomas; 1964.
27. Glezerman M. Two hundred and seventy cases of artificial donor insemination: management and results. Fertility and Sterility 1981;35(2):180-7.
28. Baker HWG. Problems with the regulation of assisted reproductive technology: a clinician's perspective. Journal of Law and Medicine 2002;9(4):457-469.
29. Daniels KR, Curson R, Lewis GM. Semen donor recruitment: a study of donors in two clinics. Human Reproduction 1996;11(4):746-751.
30. Daniels KR, Curson R, Lewis GM. Families formed as a result of semen donor insemination: the views of semen donors. Child and Family Social Work 1996;1:97-106.
31. Daniels KR, Lewis GM, Curson R. Information sharing in semen donation: the views of donors. Social Science & Medicine 1997;44(5):673-680.
32. New Zealand 2004 Human Assisted Technology Act. Wellington, New Zealand Government.
33. Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Informing offspring of their conception by gamete donation. Fertility and Sterility 2004;81(3):527-531.