Gamete donors' expectations and experiences of contact with their donor offspring

Human Reproduction

Volumn 29, Issue 4, 2014, Pages 731-738

  Kirkman, Maggie ^a   Bourne, Kate ^b   Fisher, Jane ^a   Johnson, Louise ^b   Hammarberg, Karin ^a  

^a MONASH UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

^b Victorian Assisted Reproductive Treatment Authority   (Australia)

Author keywords

Donor anonymity; Donor assisted conception; Egg donors; Psychosocial; Sperm donors

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ADVERTIZING; AGED; ARTICLE; AUSTRALIA; CLINICAL ARTICLE; DONOR; EXPECTATION; FEMALE; GAMETE; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HUMAN; LAW; MALE; OOCYTE DONOR; PERSONAL EXPERIENCE; PERSONAL VALUE; PROGENY; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH; SEMI STRUCTURED INTERVIEW; SPERM DONOR; ARTIFICIAL INSEMINATION; CONFIDENTIALITY; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; LEGISLATION AND JURISPRUDENCE; OOCYTE DONATION; PSYCHOLOGY; SPERMATOZOON;

CONFIDENTIALITY; DISCLOSURE; FEMALE; HUMANS; INSEMINATION, ARTIFICIAL, HETEROLOGOUS; MALE; OOCYTE DONATION; SPERMATOZOA; TISSUE DONORS; VICTORIA;

EID: 84898948428     PISSN: 02681161     EISSN: 14602350     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/humrep/deu027     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Adams DH, Lorbach C. Accessing donor conception information in Australia: A call for retrospective access. J Law Med 2012;19:707-721.
2. Allan S. Donor conception, secrecy and the search for information. J LawMed 2012;19:631-650.
3. Barton M, Walker K, Weisner BP. Artificial insemination. BMJ 1945;1:40-43.
4. Blyth E, CrawshawM, Frith L, Jones C. Donor-conceived people's views and experiences of their genetic origins: A critical analysis of the research evidence. J Law Med 2012;19:769-789.
5. Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol 2006;3:77-101.
6. Cahn N. Legal parent versus biological parent: The impact of disclosure. J Law Med 2012;19:790-802.
7. Ciba Foundation. Law and Ethics of AID and Embryo Transfer, Ciba Foundation Symposium 17. Amsterdam, London, New York: Associated Scientific Publishers (Elsevier), 1973.
8. Cohen S. The invisible man. Artificial insemination by donor and the legislation on donor anonymity: A review. J Fam Plan Reprod Health Care 2004;30:270-273. (Pubitemid 39424508)
9. Cook R, Golombok S.A survey of semen donation: Phase II - The view of the donors. Hum Reprod 1995;10:951-959.
10. CrawshawM, Blyth ED, Daniels KD. Past semen donors' views about the use of a voluntary contact register. Reprod BioMed Online 2007;14:411-417. (Pubitemid 46584374)
11. Crawshaw M, Gunter C, Tidy C, Atherton F. Working with previously anonymous gamete donors and donor-conceived adults: Recent practice experiences of running the DNA-based voluntary information exchange and contact register, UK DonorLink. Hum Fertil 2013;16:26-30.
12. Daniels KR. Semen donors: Their motivations and attitudes to their offspring. J Reprod Infant Psychol 1989;7:121-127. (Pubitemid 19164809)
13. Daniels KR, KramerW, Perez-y-Perez MV. Semen donors who are open to contact with their offspring: Issues and implications for them and their families. Reprod BioMed Online 2012;25:670-677.
14. Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Informing offspring of their conception by gamete or embryo donation: A committee opinion. Fertil Steril 2013;100:45-49.
15. Finegold WJ. Artificial Insemination. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas, 1964.
16. Hammarberg K, Johnson L, Petrillo T. Gamete and embryo donation and surrogacy in Australia: The social context and regulatory framework. Int J Fertil Steril 2011;4:178-184.
17. Hammarberg K, Johnson L, Bourne K, Fisher J, Kirkman M. Proposed legislative change mandating retrospective release of identifying information: Consultation with donors and Government response. Hum Reprod 2013. doi: 10.1093/humrep/det434.
18. 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.
19. JanssensPMW, SimonsAHM, van Kooij RJ, Blokzijl E, Dunselman GAJ.Anew Dutch Law regulating provision of identifying information of donors to offspring: Background, content and impact. Hum Reprod 2006; 21:852-856.
20. Johnson L, Bourne K, Hammarberg K. Donor conception legislation in Victoria, Australia: The "Time to Tell" campaign, donor-linking and implications for clinical practice. J Law Med 2012;19:803-819.
21. Kirkman M. Egg and embryo donation and the meaning of motherhood. Women Health 2003a;38:1-18. (Pubitemid 37540947)
22. Kirkman M. Parents' contributions to the narrative identity of offspring of donor-assisted conception. Soc Sci Med 2003b;57:2229-2242. (Pubitemid 37153162)
23. Kirkman M. Genetic connection and relationships in narratives of donor-assisted conception. Aust J Emerging Technol Soc 2004a;2. http://www.swinburne.edu.au/sbs/ajets/journal/V2N1/V2N1-1-Kirkman.htm
24. Kirkman M. Saviours and satyrs: Ambivalence in narrative meanings of sperm provision. Cult Health Sex 2004b;6:319-336.
25. Law Reform Committee. Inquiry into access by donor-conceived people to information about donors. Parliamentary paper no. 120, session 2010- 2012. 2012. Parliament of Victoria, Melbourne
26. Mahlstedt PP, LaBounty K, Kennedy WT. The views of adult offspring of sperm donation: Essential feedback for the development of ethical guidelines within the practice of assisted reproductive technology in the United States. Fertil Steril 2010;93:2236-2246.
27. Purewal S, van Den Akker OBA. Systematic review of oocyte donation: Investigating attitudes, motivations and experiences. Hum Reprod Update 2009;15:499-515.
28. Raes I, RavelingienA, PenningsG. The right of the donor to information about childrenconceivedfromhisor her gametes.HumReprod 2013;28:560-565.
29. Ravitsky V. Conceived and deceived: The medical interests of donor-conceived individuals. Hastings Cent Rep 2012;42:17-22.
30. RiggsDW, Scholz B. The value and meaning attached to genetic relatedness among Australian sperm donors. New Genet Soc 2011;30:41-58.
31. Rodino IS, Burton PJ, Sanders KA. Donor information considered important to donors, recipients and offspring: An Australian perspective. Reprod BioMed Online 2011;22:303-311.
32. Shukla U, Deval B, Jansa Perez M, Hamoda H, Savvas M, NarvekarN. Sperm donor recruitment, attitudes and provider practices - 5 years after the removal of donor anonymity. Hum Reprod 2013;28:676-682.
33. Speirs JM. Semen donors' curiosity about donor offspring and the barriers to their knowing. Hum Fertil 2012;15:89-93.
34. Thorn P, KatzorkeT, Daniels K. Semen donors in Germany: A study exploring motivations and attitudes. Hum Reprod 2008;23:2415-2420.
35. Tomazin F. Sperm donor privacy 'not protected'. Sunday Age 2013, 3 February, p. 9. Retrieved from http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/sperm-donor- privacy-not-protected-20130202-2drh6.html, consulted 4.2.13.
36. Turkmendag I. The donor-conceived child's 'right to personal identity': The public debate on donor anonymity in the United Kingdom. J Law Soc 2012;39:58-75.
37. Turner AJ, 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 psychotherapy. Hum Reprod 2000; 15:2041-2051.
38. Van Den Broeck U, Vandermeeren M, Vanderschueren D, Enzlin P, Demyttenaere K, D'Hooghe T. A systematic review of sperm donors: Demographic characteristics, attitudes, motives and experiences of the process of sperm donation. Hum Reprod Update, 2013;19:37-51.
39. Victorian Assisted Reproductive Treatment Authority. Annual Report 2013. 2013. Melbourne: VARTA, www.varta.org.au.
40. Yee S, Blyth E, Ka Tat Tsang A. Views of donors and recipients regarding disclosure to children following altruistic known oocyte donation. Reprod BioMed Online 2011;23:851-859.