The right of the donor to information about children conceived from his or her gametes

Human Reproduction

Volumn 28, Issue 3, 2013, Pages 560-565

  Raes, Inez ^a   Ravelingien, An ^a   Pennings, Guido ^a  

^a GHENT UNIVERSITY   (Belgium)

Author keywords

anonymity; donors; ethics; rights

Indexed keywords

ALTRUISM; ARTICLE; CHILD HEALTH; COMPENSATION; DONOR; GAMETE; GAMETE DONATION; GENETIC DISORDER; HUMAN; INFERTILITY THERAPY; INFORMATION; INFORMATION DISSEMINATION; MEDICAL INFORMATION; PROGENY; REWARD; SPERM DONOR;

EID: 84874320655     PISSN: 02681161     EISSN: 14602350     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/humrep/des444     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. Baetens P, Devroey P, Camus M, Van Steirteghem AC, Ponjaert-Kristoffersen I. Counselling couples and donors for oocyte donation: the decision to use either known or anonymous oocytes. Hum Reprod 2000;15: 476-484.
2. Cook R, Golombok S. A survey of semen donation: phase II-the view of donors. Hum Reprod 1995;10: 951-959.
3. Daniels K. The social responsibility of gamete providers. J Community Appl Soc 1998;8: 261-271.
4. Daniels K. Anonymity and openness and the recruitment of gamete donors. Part 2: oocyte donors. Hum Fertil (Camb) 2007;10: 223-231.
5. Daniels K, Lalos O. The Swedish insemination act and the availability of donors. Hum Reprod 1995;10: 1871-1874.
6. Daniels K, Blyth E, Crawshaw M, Curson R. Short communication: previous semen donors and their views regarding the sharing of information with offspring. Hum Reprod 2005;20: 1670-1675.
7. Dillard C. Valuing having children. J Law Fam Stud 2010;151: 151-198.
8. Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Interests, obligations, and rights of the donor in gamete donation. Fertil Steril 2009;91: 22-27.
9. Fernandez CV, Kodish E, Weijer C. Informing study participants of research results: an ethical imperative. IRB 2003;25: 12-19.
10. Frith L, Blyth E, Farrand A. UK gamete donors' reflections on the removal of anonymity: implications for recruitment. Hum Reprod 2007; 22: 1675-1680.
11. Godman KM, Sanders K, Rosenberg M, Burton P. Potential sperm donors', recipients' and their partners' opinions towards the release of identifying information in Western Australia. Hum Reprod 2006;21: 3022-3026.
12. Gürtin ZB, Ahuja KK, Golombok S. Emotional and relational aspects of egg-sharing: egg-share donors' and recipients' feelings about each other, each others' treatment outcome and any resulting children. Hum Reprod 2012;27: 1690-1701.
13. Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. SEED report: a review of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority's review of sperm, egg and embryo donation in the UK. London: HFEA, 2005.
14. Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. Apply for information, 2009. http://www.hfea.gov.uk/1975.html (11 February 2012, date last accessed).
15. Jadva V, Freeman T, Kramer W, Golombok S. The experiences of adolescents and adults conceived by sperm donation: comparisons by age of disclosure and family type. Hum Reprod 2009; 24: 1909-1919.
16. Jadva V, Freeman T, Kramer W, Golombok S. Experiences of offspring searching for and contacting their donor siblings and donor. Reprod BioMed Online 2010;20: 523-532.
17. Jadva V, Freeman T, Kramer W, Golombok S. Sperm and oocyte donors' experiences of anonymous donation and subsequent contact with their donor offspring. Hum Reprod 2011;26: 638-645.
18. Janssens PMW, Simons AHM, Van Kooij RJ, Blokzijl E, Dunselman GAJ. A new Dutch law regulating provision of identifying information of donors to offspring: background, content and impact. Hum Reprod 2006; 21: 852-856.
19. Janssens PMW, Nap AW, Bancsi LF. Reconsidering the number of offspring per gamete donor in the Dutch open-identity system. Hum Fertil (Camb) 2011;14: 106-114.
20. Jones B. Fatal heart condition passed on by sperm donor. BioNews 2009; 531.
21. Jordan CB, Belar CD, Williams RS. Anonymous oocyte donation: a follow-up analysis of donors' experiences. J Psychosom Obst Gyn 2004; 25: 145-151.
22. Kaebnick GE. The natural father: genetic paternity testing, marriage, and fatherhood. Camb Q Healthc Ethic 2004;13: 40-60.
23. Kalfoglou AL, Geller G. A follow-up study with oocyte donors exploring their experiences, knowledge, and attitudes about the use of their oocytes and the outcome of the donation. Fertil Steril 2000; 74: 660-667.
24. Knoppers BM, Joly Y, Simard J, Durocher F. The emergence of an ethical duty to disclose genetic research results: international perspectives. Eur J Hum Genet 2006;14: 1170-1178.
25. Law Reform Committee. Inquiry into access by donor-conceived people to information about donors. Parliamentar Paper No 120, Session 2010-2012, 2012.
26. McGee G, Brakman S, Gurmankin AD. Gamete donation and anonymity. Disclosure to children conceived with donor gametes should not be optional. Hum Reprod 2001;16: 2033-2038.
27. McWhinnie A. Should offspring from donated gametes continue to be denied knowledge of their origins and antecedents. Hum Reprod 2001; 16: 807-817.
28. New Zealand Government. Human assisted reproductive technology act 2004. New Zealand Legislation. http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2004/0092/ latest/DLM319385.html?search=ts-act-human-resel 2004 (7 May 2012, date last accessed).
29. Pennings G. The reduction of sperm donors due to abolition of anonymity. J Assist Reprod Gen 2001;18: 617-622.
30. Pennings G. Commentary on Craft and Thornhill: new ethical strategies to recruit gamete donors. Reprod BioMed Online 2005;10: 307-309.
31. Purewal S, van den Akker OBA. Systematic review of oocyte donation: investigating attitudes, motivations and experiences. Hum Reprod Update 2009;15: 499-515.
32. Ravitsky V. Conceived and deceived: the medical interests of donor-conceived individuals. Hastings Cent Rep 2012;42: 17-22.
33. Riggs DW. Using multinomial logistic regression analysis to develop a model of Australian gay and heterosexual sperm donors' motivations and beliefs. Int J Emerg Technol Soc 2008;6: 106-123.
34. Riggs DW, Russell L. Characteristics of men willing to act as sperm donors in the context of identity-release legislation. Hum Reprod 2011;26: 266-272.
35. Ripper M. Australian sperm donors: public image and private motives of gay, bisexual and heterosexual donors. Health Soc Rev 2008;17: 319-331.
36. Robertson JA. Children of choice: freedom and the new reproductive technologies. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994.
37. Scheib JE, Cushing RA. Open-identity donor insemination in the United States: is it on the rise? Fertil Steril 2007;88: 231-232.
38. Scheib JE, Riordan M, Rubin S. Adolescents with open-identity sperm donors: reports from 12-17 year olds. Hum Reprod 2005; 20: 239-252.
39. Sydsjö G, Lampic C, Brändström S, Gudmundsson J, Karlström PO, Solensten NG, Thurin-Kjellberg A, Svanberg AS. Personality characteristics in a Swedish national sample of identifiable oocyte donors. BJOG 2011;118: 1067-1072.
40. Sydsjö G, Lampic C, Brändström S, Gudmundsson J, Karlström PO, Solensten NG, Thurin-Kjellberg A, Svanberg AS. Who becomes a sperm donor: personality characteristics in a national sample of identifiable donors. BJOG-Int J Obstet Gy 2012;119: 33-39.
41. Thorn P, Katzorke T, Daniels K. Semen donors in Germany: a study exploring motivations and attitudes. Hum Reprod 2008;23: 2415-2420.
42. Velleman JD. Persons in prospect. ROY I PH S 2008;36: 221-288.
43. Victorian Registry of Birth Death and Marriages. Central register: who can apply for information 2008 http://online.justice.vic.gov. au/CA2574F700805DE7/page/Births-Donor+treatment+registers-Central+Register? OpenDocument&1=10-Births~&2=20-Donor+ treatment+registers~&3=10- Central+Register~ (7May 2012, date last accessed).
44. Wolfgram SM. Openness in adoption: what we know so far-a critical review of the literature. Soc Work 2008;53: 133-142.