Donor gametes: anonymous or identified?

Best Practice and Research: Clinical Obstetrics and Gynaecology

Volumn 21, Issue 1, 2007, Pages 113-128

  Daniels, Ken ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CANTERBURY   (New Zealand)

Author keywords

anonymous; donor gametes; identifiable; secrecy

Indexed keywords

ARTIFICIAL INSEMINATION; FAMILY; GOVERNMENT; HUMAN; INFERTILITY; LAW; OOCYTE DONATION; PARENT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROGENY; PSYCHOLOGIST; REVIEW; SOCIAL WORKER; SPERM DONOR;

CHILD; DISCLOSURE; FEMALE; HUMANS; INSEMINATION, ARTIFICIAL, HETEROLOGOUS; MALE; NEW ZEALAND; OOCYTE DONATION; PREGNANCY; TISSUE DONORS;

EID: 33847260337     PISSN: 15216934     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2006.09.010     Document Type: Review

References (72)

1. Daniels K. Building a Family: with the Assistance of Donor Insemination (2004), Dunmore Press, Palmerston North, NZ
2. Gregoire A.T., and Mayer R.C. The impregnators. Fertil Steril 16 (1965) 130-134
3. Asche A. Creating Children: Report of the Family Law Council of Australia (1985), Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra
4. Dewar J. Fathers in law? The case of AID. In: Lee R., and Morgan D. (Eds). Birthrights: Law and Ethics at the Beginnings of Life (1989), Routledge, London pp. 115-131
5. Weil E. Privacy and disclosure: the psychological impact on gamete donors and recipients in assisted reproduction. J Assist Reprod Genet 14 (1997) 369-371
6. Shenfield F. Privacy versus disclosure in gamete donation: a clash of interest, of duties, or an exercise in responsibility?. J Assist Reprod Genet 14 (1997) 371-373
7. In: Singer D., and Hunter M. (Eds). Assisted Human Reproduction: Psychological and Ethical Dilemmas (2003), Whurr Publishers, London
8. Daniels K.R., and Taylor K. Secrecy and openness in donor insemination. Polit Life Sci 12 (1993) 155-170
9. Commission Appointed by His Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury. Artificial Human Insemination (1948), Society for the Propagation of Christian Knowledge, London
10. Rowland R. The social and psychological consequences of secrecy in artificial insemination by donor (AID) programmes. Soc Sci Med 21 (1985) 391-396
11. Daniels K. Policy development in third-party reproduction: an international perspective. In: Singer D., and Hunter M. (Eds). Assisted Human Reproduction: Psychological and Ethical Dilemmas (2003), Whurr Publishers, London
12. Blank R. Regulation of donor insemination. In: Daniels K.R., and Haimes E. (Eds). Donor Insemination: International Social Science Perspectives (1998), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 131-150
13. Knoppers B.M., and LeBris S. Recent advances in medically assisted conception: legal ethical and social issues. Am J Law Med 18 (1991) 329-361
14. McMichael A. Social aspects. In: Wood C., Leeton J., and Kovacs G. (Eds). Artificial Insemination by Donor (1981), Brown Prior Andersen, Melbourne
15. Brandon J., and Warner J. AID and adoption: some comparisons. Br J Soc Work 7 (1977) 335-341
16. McWhinnie A. Disclosure and development: 'taking the baby home was just the beginning'. In: Singer D., and Hunter M. (Eds). Assisted Human Reproduction: Psychological and Ethical Dilemmas (2003), Whurr Publishers, London
17. Lorbach C. Experiences of Donor Conception: Parents, Offspring and Donors Through the Years (2003), Jessica Kingsley Publishers, London
18. Rubin S. A Spermdonor Baby Grows Up. In: Zimmerman J. (Ed). The Technological Woman: Interfacing with Tomorrow (1983), Praeger, New York 211-215
19. S. Rubin. Letter to Editor. School paper of Louisiana State University - Northridge. 1981 (September).
20. Blyth E. The social work role in assisted conception. Br J Soc Work 29 (1999) 727-740
21. Blyth E., Martin N., and Potter C. Assisted human reproduction: contemporary policy and practice in the UK. In: Singer D., and Hunter M. (Eds). Assisted Human Reproduction: Psychological and Ethical Dilemmas (2003), Whurr Publishers, London
22. Back K.W., and Snowden R. The anonymity of the gamete donor. J Psychosom Obstet Gynaecol 9 (1988) 191-198
23. Sweden. Swedish Law on Artificial Insemination, No 1140/1984, Swedish Government. Stockholm, 1984.
24. Miall C. The stigma of involuntary childlessness. Soc Problems 33 (1986) 268-282
25. Nachtigall R.D., Pitcher L., Tschann J.M., et al. Stigma, disclosure, and family functioning among parents of children conceived through donor insemination. Fertil Steril 68 (1997) 83-89
26. Daniels K., and Meadows L. Sharing information with adults conceived as a result of donor insemination. Hum Fertil 9 (2006) 93-99
27. Bateman Novaes S. The medical management of donor insemination. In: Daniels K., and Haimes E. (Eds). Donor Insemination: International Social Science Perspectives (1998), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
28. Shenfield F., and Steele S.J. What are the effects of anonymity and secrecy on the welfare of the child in gamete donation?. Hum Reprod 12 (1997) 392-395
29. Haimes E.V. Do clinicians benefit from gamete donor anonymity?. Hum Reprod 8 (1993) 1518-1520
30. Craft I., and Thornhill A. Would all-inclusive compensation attract more gamete donors to balance their loss of anonymity?. Reprod Biomed Online 10 (2005) 301-306
31. Craft I. Will removal of anonymity influence the recruitment of egg donors? A survey of past donors and recipients. Reprod Biomed Online 10 (2005) 325-329
32. Ahuja K., Simons E., Nair S., et al. Minimising risk in anonymous egg donation. Reprod Biomed Online 7 (2003) 504-505
33. Ethics Comittee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Informing offspring of their conception by gamete donation. Fertil Steril 82 Supplement 1 (2004) S212-S216
34. Finegold W.J. Artificial Insemination (1964), Charles C. Thomas, Springfield, Illinois
35. Glezerman M. Two hundred and seventy cases of artificial donor insemination: management and results. Fertil Steril 35 (1981) 180-187
36. Johnston I. The donor. In: Wood C., Leeton J., and Kovacs G. (Eds). Artificial Insemination by Donor (1981), Brown Prior Andersen, Melbourne
37. Daniels K.R., and Lewis G. Donor insemination: the gifting and selling of semen. Soc Sci Med 42 (1996) 1521-1536
38. Daniels K.R., and Hall D.J. Semen donor recruitment: strategies for a non-payment based approach. Hum Reprod 12 (1997) 2330-2335
39. Tober D. Semen as gift, semen as goods: reproductive workers and the market in altruism. Body Soc 7 (2001) 137-160
40. Mauss M. The Gift: Forms and Functions of Exchange in Archaic Societies (1954), Free Press, Glencoe, Illinois
41. Daniels K., Feyles V., Nisker J., et al. Sperm donation: implications of Canada's Assisted Human Reproduction Act 2004 on recipients, donors, health professionals, and institutions. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 28 (2006) 608-615
42. Annas G. Fathers anonymous: beyond the best interests of the sperm donor. Fam Law Q 14 (1980) 1-13
43. Daniels K.R. The semen providers. In: Daniels K., and Haimes E. (Eds). Donor Insemination: International Social Science Perspectives (1998), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 76-104
44. Cook R., and Golombok S. A survey of semen donation: phase 2 - the view of the donors. Hum Reprod 10 (1995) 951-959
45. Ahuja K., Simons E., and Edwards R.G. Money, morals and medical risks: conflicting notions underlying the recruitment of egg donors. Hum Reprod 14 (1999) 279-284
46. Ahuja K.K., Mostyn B.J., and Simons E.G. Egg sharing and egg donation: attitudes of British egg donors and recipients. Hum Reprod 12 (1997) 2845-2852
47. Sauer M.V., and Bergh P.A. Indecent proposal: $5,000 is not 'reasonable compensation' for oocyte donors. Fertil Steril 71 (1999) 7-10
48. Daniels K.R., Curson R., and Lewis G.M. Semen donor recruitment: a study of donors in two clinics. Hum Reprod 11 (1996) 746-751
49. Daniels K., Blyth E., Crawshaw M., et al. Previous semen donors and their views regarding the sharing of information with offspring. Hum Reprod 20 (2005) 1670-1675
50. Kramer W. Donor Sibling Registry. Nederland (2000). http://www.donorsiblingregistry.com
51. Golombok S. New family forms: children raised in solo mother families, lesbian mother families and in families created by assisted reproduction. In: Balter L., and Tamis-LeMonda L. (Eds). Child Psychology: a Handbook of Contemporary Issues (1999), Psychology Press, Philadelphia 429-446
52. Golombok S., MacCallum F., Goodman E., et al. Families with children conceived by donor insemination: a follow-up at age twelve. Child Dev 73 (2002) 952-968
53. van Berkel D., van der Veen L., Kimmel I., et al. Differences in the attitudes of couples whose children were conceived through artificial insemination by donor in 1980 and 1996. Fertil Steril 71 (1999) 226-231
54. Golombok S., Brewaeys A., Cook R., et al. The European Study of Assisted Reproduction Families: family functioning and child development. Hum Reprod 11 (1996) 2324-2331
55. Murray C. Gamete Privacy: Should Egg and Sperm Donors be Anonymous? (2000), The Royal Society, London
56. Gottlieb C., Lalos O., and Lindblad F. Disclosure of donor insemination to the child: the impact of Swedish legislation on couples' attitudes. Hum Reprod 15 (2000) 2052-2056
57. Adair V. Telling the story: parents' scripts for donor offspring. Hum Reprod 14 (1999) 1392-1399
58. Daniels K. New Zealand: from secrecy and shame to openness and acceptance. In: Blyth E., and Landau R. (Eds). Third Party Assisted Conception Across Cultures (2002), Jessica Kingley Publishers, London
59. Golombok S., Cook R., Bish A., et al. Families created by new reproductive technologies: quality of parenting and social and emotional development of the children. Child Dev 66 (1995) 285-298
60. Lycett E., Daniels K., Curson R., et al. School-aged children of donor insemination: a study of parents' disclosure patterns. Hum Reprod 20 (2005) 810-819
61. Brewaeys A., Golombok S., Naaktgeboren N., et al. Donor insemination: Dutch parents' opinions about confidentiality and donor anonymity and the emotional adjustment of their children. Hum Reprod 12 (1997) 1591-1597
62. Donor Conception Network. Nottingham (2003). http://www.donor-conception-network.org
63. Thorn P., and Daniels K. A group-work approach in family building by donor insemination: empowering the marginalized. Hum Fertil 6 (2003) 46-50
64. Murray C. Children raised in assisted human reproduction families: the evidence. In: Singer D., and Hunter M. (Eds). Assisted Human Reproduction: Psychological and Ethical Dilemmas (2003), Whurr Publishers, London
65. Soderstrom-Anttila V., Sajaniemi N., Tiitinen A., et al. Health and development of children born after oocyte donation compared with that of those born after in-vitro fertilisation and parents attitudes regarding secrecy. Hum Reprod 13 (1998) 2009-2015
66. Turner A.J., and Coyle A. What does it mean to be a donor offspring? The identity experiences of adults conceived by donor insemination and the implications for counselling and therapy. Hum Reprod 15 (2000) 2041-2051
67. Pettle S. Psychological therapy and counselling with individuals and families after donor conception. In: Singer D., and Hunter M. (Eds). Assisted Human Reproduction: Psychological and Ethical Dilemmas (2003), Whurr Publishers, London
68. Lowie R. Social Organisation (1948), Rinehort, New York
69. Schneider D. Kinship and biology. In: Coale A., Fallers L., Levy M., et al. (Eds). Aspects of the Analysis of Family Structure. Princeton: (1965), Princeton University Press
70. Finkler K. The kin in the gene: the medicalization of family and kinship in American society. Curr Anthropol 42 (2001) 235-263
71. Finkler K., Skrzynia C., and Evans J.P. The new genetics and its consequences for family, kinship, medicine and medical genetics. Soc Sci Med 57 (2003) 403-412
72. Daniels K. Is blood really thicker than water? Assisted reproduction and its impact on our thinking about family. J Psychosom Obstet Gynaecol 26 (2005) 265-270