Genetic Knowledge and Family Identity: Managing Gamete Donation in Britain and Germany

Sociology

Volumn 47, Issue 5, 2013, Pages 939-956

  Klotz, Maren ^a  

^a HUMBOLDT UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

Author keywords

disclosure of gamete donation; egg donation; family identity; genetic information; interest groups; kinship; knowledge management; sperm donation

Indexed keywords

EID: 84885699526     PISSN: 00380385     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0038038513501729     Document Type: Article

References (73)

1. Almeling RSex Cells: The Medical Market for Eggs and Sperm. Berkeley: University of California Press; 2011:.
2. Baxter NOur Story: A Book for Young Children about their Conception through Donor Sperm to Lesbian Parents. Nottingham: Donor Conception Network; 2002a:.
3. Baxter NOur Story: For Children Conceived through DI into Single Parent Families. Nottingham: Donor Conception Network; 2002b:.
4. Baxter NOur Story: For Children Conceived through Double or Embryo Donation. Nottingham: Donor Conception Network; 2002c:.
5. Baxter NOur Story: For Children Conceived through Egg Donation. Nottingham: Donor Conception Network; 2002d:.
6. Verwandtschaft machen. Beck SCil NHess SKlotz MKnecht M, ed. Berlin: LIT; 2007:.
7. Bergmann SReproductive Technologies as Global Form. Knecht MKlotz MBeck S, ed. Frankfurt am Main:: Campus/University of Chicago Press; 2012:331-56.
8. Blake L,Casey P,Readings J,Jadva V,Golombok S.Daddy ran out of tadpoles: How parents tell their children that they are donor conceived, and what their 7-year-olds understand.Human Reproduction. 2010;25 (10): 2527-34.
9. Bouquet MReclaiming English Kinship. Manchester: Manchester University Press; 1993:.
10. German Constitutional Court 31.01.1989. Kenntnis der eigenen Abstammung. 1989;:256.
11. Callon M,Rabeharisoa V.The growing engagement of emergent concerned groups in political and economic life.Science, Technology, Human Values. 2008;33 (2): 230-61.
12. Carsten JAfter Kinship. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2003:.
13. Carsten J.Constitutive knowledge: Tracing trajectories of information in new contexts of relatedness.Anthropological Quarterly. 2007;80 (2): 403-26.
14. Daniels KBuilding a Family with the Assistance of Donor Insemination. Palmerston North: Dunmore Press; 2004:.
15. Donor Insemination: International Social Science Perspectives. Daniels KHaimes E, ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1998:.
16. Daniels K,Thorn P.Sharing information with donor insemination offspring.Human Reproduction. 2001;16 (9): 1792-6.
17. David ME.Evidence-based policy as a concept for modernising governance and social science research.Social Policy and Society. 2002;1 (3): 213-14.
18. Diedrich K,Felderbaum R,Griesinger G,Hepp H,Kreß H,Riedel UReproduktionsmedizin im internationalen Vergleich. Berlin: Stabsabteilung der Friedrich-Ebert-Stifung; 2008:.
19. Edwards JBorn and Bred: Idioms of Kinship and New Reproductive Technologies in England. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2000:.
20. Edwards J.Reflecting on the 'Euro' in 'Euro-American Kinship'.Acta Historica Universitatis Klaipendensis. 2006;XIII:129-39.
21. EdwardsJ (2009) The Ancestor in the Machine. CRESC Working Paper Series, 71: 2-21. Available at: http://www.cresc.ac.uk/sites/default/files/wp%2071.pdf (accessed 15 August 2011).
22. Emerson RM,Fretz RI,Shaw LLWriting Ethnographic Fieldnotes. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1995:.
23. Epstein SImpure Science. Berkeley: University of California Press; 1996:.
24. ESchG (1990) German Government 13.12.1990. Embryonenschutzgesetz [Embryo Protection Act].
25. Finkler K.The kin in the gene. The medicalization of family and kinship in American society.Current Anthropology. 2001;42 (2): 235-63.
26. Foucault MGouvernementalität der Gegenwart. Bröckling UKrasmann SLemke T, ed. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp; 2000:41-67.
27. Franklin SEmbodied Progress: A Cultural Account of Assisted Conception. London: Routledge; 1997:.
28. Franklin STechnologies of Procreation. Edwards JFranklin SHirsch EPrice FStrathern M, ed. London: Routledge; 1999:96-132.
29. Franklin SRelative Values. Franklin SMcKinnon S, ed. Durham, NC: Duke University Press; 2001:302-28.
30. Franklin S.Not a flat world: The future of cross-border reproductive care.Reproductive BioMedicine Online. 2011;23:814-16.
31. Franklin SReproductive Technologies as Global Form. Knecht MKlotz MBeck S, ed. Frankfurt am Main: and New York: Campus/University of Chicago Press; 2012:27-60.
32. Relative Values: Reconfiguring Kinship Studies. Franklin SMcKinnon S, ed. Durham, NC: Duke University Press; 2001:.
33. Freeman T,Jadva V,Kramer W,Golombok S.Gamete donation: Parents' experiences of searching for their child's donor siblings and donor.Human Reproduction. 2009;24 (3): 505-16.
34. Frith L.Gamete donation and anonymity. The ethical and legal debate.Human Reproduction. 2001;16:818-24.
35. GewebeG (2007) German Government 20.7.07. Transplantationsgesetz (Revision) [Transplantation Law] (BGBl. I S. 1574).
36. Gibbon S.Re-examining geneticization.Science as Culture. 2002;11:429-57.
37. Golombok S,Lycett E,MacCallum F, et al.Parenting infants conceived by gamete donation.Journal of Family Psychology. 2004;18:443-52.
38. Graumann S,Schneider IVerkörperte Technik, entkörperte Frau. Frankfurt am Main: Campus; 2003:.
39. Haimes EThe New Reproductive Technologies. McNeil MVarcoe IYearley S, ed. London: Macmillan; 1990:154-72.
40. Haimes EChanging Human Reproduction. Stacy M, ed. London: Sage; 1992:119-48.
41. Haimes EDonor Insemination. Daniels KHaimes E, ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1998:53-76.
42. Hantrais L.Comparing family policy in Britain, France and Germany.Journal of Social Policy. 1994;23:135-60.
43. Der geteilte Leib. Hauser-Schäublin BKalitkus VPeterson ISchröder I, ed. Frankfurt am Main: Campus; 2000:.
44. Hauskeller C.How traditions of ethical reasoning and institutional processes shape stem cell research in Britain.Journal of Medicine and Philosophy. 2004;29 (5): 509-32.
45. Secrets in Family and Family Therapy. Imber-Black E, ed. New York: W.W. Norton; 1993:.
46. Jadva V,Freeman T,Kramer W,Golombok S.Experiences of offspring searching for and contacting their donor siblings and donor.Reproductive BioMedicine Online. 2010;20 (4): 523-32.
47. Jasanoff SDesigns on Nature. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; 2005:.
48. Jones HW,Cooke I,Kempers R, et al.International Federation of Fertility Societies Surveillance 2010: Preface.Fertility and Sterility. 2011;95 (2): 491.
49. Klotz M[K]information. An Ethnographic Exploration of Gamete Donation and Kinship Knowledge. Frankfurt am Main and New York: Campus/University of Chicago Press; forthcoming:.
50. Samenbanken - Samenspender. Knecht MHeinitz AFBurghardt SMohr S, ed. Berlin: Panama; 2010:.
51. Konrad M.Ova donation and symbols of substance.Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute. 1998;4 (4): 643-67.
52. Lippman A.Led (astray) by genetic maps.Social Science and Medicine. 1992;35:1469-76.
53. Lycett E,Daniels K,Curson R,Chir B,Golombok S.Offspring created as a result of donor insemination: A study of family relationships, child adjustment, and disclosure.Fertility and Sterility. 2004;82:172-9.
54. Mamo L.Biomedicalizing kinship.Science as Culture. 2005;14 (3): 237-64.
55. Miller P,Rose NGoverning the Present. Cambridge: Polity Press; 2008:.
56. Montuschi OTelling and Talking about Donor Conception with 0-7 Year Olds. Nottingham: Donor Conception Network; 2006:.
57. Nelkin D,Lindee MSThe DNA Mystique. New York: Freeman; 1995:.
58. Offord J,Mays A,Heath JMy Story. Sheffield: J.W. Northend; 1991:.
59. OLG Hamm (2013) Regional Appeal Court Hamm 'Auskunftspflicht' [Accountability], I-14 U 7/12.
60. Polat NReproductive Technologies as Global Form. Knecht MKlotz MBeck S, ed. Frankfurt am Main and New York: Campus/University of Chicago Press; 2012:197-228.
61. Rütz EMKHeterologe Insemination - Die Rechtliche Stellung des Samenspenders. Berlin: Springer; 2008:.
62. Schneider DMAmerican Kinship. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall; 1968:.
63. Strathern MAfter Nature. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1992:.
64. Strathern MRefusing Information. Property, Substance, and Effect: Anthropological Essays on Persons and Things. London: Athlone Press; 1999:64-88.
65. Audit Cultures. Strathern M, ed. London: Routledge; 2000:.
66. Thorn PFamiliengründung mit Spendersamen. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer; 2008:.
67. Thorn P,Daniels K.Psychosoziale Fragestellungen, die bei der Familienbildung mit donogener Insemination entstehen.Reproduktionsmedizin. 2000;16 (3): 202-7.
68. Thorn P,Herrmann-Green LDie Geschichte unserer Familie. Ein Buch für lesbische Familien mit Wunschkindern durch Samenspende. Mörfelden: FamArt; 2009:.
69. Thorn P,Rinaldi TDie Geschichte unserer Familie. Ein Buch für Familien, die sich mit Hilfe der Spendersamenbehandlung gebildet haben. Mörfelden: FamArt; 2006:.
70. Timm EGenerationenbeziehungen in Familie und Gesellschaft. Mohrmann R-E, ed. Münster: Waxman; 2011:147-79.
71. Turkmendag I.The donor-conceived child's 'right to personal identity': The public debate on donor anonymity in the United Kingdom.Journal of Law and Society. 2012;39 (1): 58-75.
72. Vinken BDie deutsche Mutter. München: Piper; 2001:.
73. Warnock MA Question of Life. Oxford: Blackwell; 1985:.