When ‘ sperm ’ becomes ‘ donor ’: Transitions in parents ’ views of the sperm donor

Human Fertility

Volumn 17, Issue 4, 2014, Pages 269-277

  Indekeu, Astrid ^a   D’Hooghe, Thomas ^a   Daniels, Ken R ^b   Dierickx, Kris ^a   Rober, Peter ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LEUVEN   (Belgium)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CANTERBURY   (New Zealand)

Author keywords

Donor conception; Parents; Sperm donor; Transition

Indexed keywords

AWARENESS; CHEMICAL BINDING; CLINICAL STUDY; CONCEPTION; COUNSELING; FAMILY LIFE; FEMALE; FERTILITY; GROUNDED THEORY; HETEROSEXUALITY; HUMAN; INTERVIEW; LIFE CYCLE; NARRATIVE; PARENTHOOD; PREGNANCY; PROGENY; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH; RECIPIENT; SPERM DONOR; TODDLER; ADULT; ARTIFICIAL INSEMINATION; BELGIUM; CHILD PARENT RELATION; DONOR; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; LONGITUDINAL STUDY; MALE; NEWBORN; PARENT; PSYCHOLOGIC TEST; PSYCHOLOGY;

ADULT; BELGIUM; COUNSELING; DISCLOSURE; FEMALE; HUMANS; INFANT, NEWBORN; INSEMINATION, ARTIFICIAL, HETEROLOGOUS; INTERVIEW, PSYCHOLOGICAL; LONGITUDINAL STUDIES; MALE; PARENT-CHILD RELATIONS; PARENTS; PREGNANCY; TISSUE DONORS;

EID: 84938067873     PISSN: 14647273     EISSN: 17428149     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3109/14647273.2014.910872     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. Adrian, S. (2010). Sperm stories: policies and practices of sperm banking in Denmark and Sweden. European Journal of Women ’ s Studies, 17, 393–411.
2. Becker, G, Butler, A, & Nachtigall, R.D. (2005). Resemblance talk: a challenge for parents whose children were conceived with donor gametes in the US. Social Science & Medicine, 61, 1300–1309.
3. Belgian Act of 6 July 2007. Law on assisted reproduction and the use of surplus embryo ’ s and gametes [Wet betreff ende de medisch begeleide voortplanting en de bestemming van de overtallige embryo ’ s en de gameten], B.S. 17 July 2007; 38575.
4. Belgian Federal Advisory Committee of Bio-Ethics. (2004). Recommendation no 27 regarding sperm donation and oocyte donation. [pdf ] Brussels: Belgian Advisory Committee of Bio- Ethics Available at: http://www.health.belgium.be/eportal/ Healthcare/Consultativebodies/Commitees/Bioethics/ Opinions/index.htm [accessed 29 May 2013] BELRAP, 2009-2013.
5. Belgian Register for Assisted Procreation [online] Available at: http://www.belrap.be. [Accessed 29 May 2012].
6. Belgian Royal Decree, 4 June 2003, BRD as amendment of the RD of 25 April 2002 on the determination and the settlement of the financial budgets of the hospitals [KB tot wijziging van het KB van 25 April 2002 betreff ende de vaststelling en de vereff ening van het budget van financi ë le middelen van de ziekenuizen], B.S. 16 June 2003; 32127.
7. Blyth, E., Langridge, D, & Harris, R. (2010). Family building in donor conception: parents ’ experiences of sharing information. Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psychology, 28, 116–127.
8. Blyth, E. (2012). Genesrus? Making sense of genetic and non-genetic relationships following anonymous donor insemination. Reproductive BioMedicine Online, 24, 719–726.
9. Blyth, E, Crawshaw, M, Frith, L, & Jones, C. (2012). Donor-conceived people ’ s views and experiences of their genetic origins: A critical analysis of the research evidence. Journal of Law and Medicine, 19, 769–789.
10. Brewaeys, A, de Bruyn, J.K, Louwe, L.A, & Helmerhorst, F.M. (2005). Anonymous or identity-registered sperm donors? A study of Dutch recipients ’ choices. Human Reproduction, 20, 820–824.
11. Burr, J. (2009). Fear, fascination and the sperm donor as “ abjection ” in interviews with heterosexual recipients of donor insemination. Sociology of Health & Illness, 31, 705–718.
12. Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide through Qualitative Analysis. London, Sage Publications.
13. Charmaz, K. (1990). “ Discovering ” chronic illness: using grounded theory. Social Science & Medicine, 30, 1161–1172.
14. Crawshaw, M, Blyth, E, & Daniels, K. (2007). Past semen donors ’ views about the use of a voluntary contact register. Reproductive BioMedicine Online, 14, 411–417.
15. Daniels, K, Blyth, E, Crawshaw, M, & Curson, R. (2005). Previous semen donors and their views regarding the sharing of information with off spring. Human Reproduction, 20, 1670–1675.
16. Daniels, K.R., Kramer, W., & Perez-Y-Perez, M.V. (2012). Semen donors who are open to contact with their off spring: Issues and implications for them and their families. Reproductive BioMedicine Online, 25, 670–677.
17. Freeman, T, Jadva, V, Kramer, W., & Golombok, S. (2009). Gamete donation: parents ’ experiences of searching for their chilD’ s donor sibling and donor. Human Reproduction, 24, 505–516.
18. Grace, V. & Daniels, K. (2007). Th e irrelevance of genetics: engendering parallel worlds of procreation and reproduction. Sociology of Health & Illness, 29, 692–710.
19. Grace, V.M. (2008). Th e psychosocial politics of paternity in the case of male donated gametes. Women ’ s Studies International Forum, 31, 257–262.
20. Grace, V, Daniels, K, & Gillett, W. (2008). The donor, the father, and the imaginary constitution of the family: Parents ’ constructions in the case of donor insemination. Social Science & Medicine, 66, 301–314.
21. Hargreaves, K. (2006). Constructing families and kinship through donor insemination. Sociology of Health & Illness, 28, 261–283.
22. Hershberger, P, Klock, S.C, & Barnes, R.B. (2007). Disclosure decisions among pregnant women who received donor oocytes: a phenomenological study. Fertility and Sterility, 87, 288–296.
23. Hudson, N, Culley, L, Rapport, F, Johnson, M., & Bharadwaj, A. (2009). “ Public ” perceptions of gamete donation: a research review. Public Understanding of Science, 18, 61–77.
24. Indekeu, A, D’ Hooghe, T, De Sutter, P, Demyttenaere, K, Vanderschueren, D, Vanderschot, B, et al. (2012). Parenthood motives, well-being and disclosure among men from couples ready to start treatment with intrauterine insemination using their own sperm or donor sperm. Human Reproduction, 27, 159–166.
25. Indekeu, A, Dierickx, K, Schotsmans, P, Daniels, K.R., Rober, P, & D’ Hooghe, T. (2013). Factors contributing to parental decisionmaking in disclosing donor conception: a systematic review. Human Reproduction Update, 19, 714–733.
26. Indekeu, A, D’ Hooghe, T, Daniels, K.R., Dierickx, K, & Rober, P. (2014). ‘ Of course he’ s our child’: Transitions in ‘ social parenthooD’ in donor sperm recipient families. Reproductive Biomedicine Online, 28, 106–115.
27. Jadva, V, Freeman, T, Kramer, W., & Golombok, S. (2011). Sperm and oocyte donors ’ experiences of anonymous donation and subsequent contact with their donor off spring. Human Reproduction, 26, 638–645.
28. Kirkman, M. (2004). Saviours and satyrs: ambivalence in narrative meanings of sperm provision. Culture, Health and Sexuality, 6, 319–335.
29. Klock, S.C. & Greenfeld, D.A. (2004). Parents ’ knowledge about the donors and their attitudes toward disclosure in oocyte donation. Human Reproduction, 19, 1575–1579.
30. Kvale, S. & Brinkmann, S. (2008). Interviews: Learning the Craft of Qualitative Research Interviewing. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
31. Lewis, J. (2007). Analysing qualitative longitudinal research in evaluations. Social Policy & Society, 6, 545–556.
32. Nordqvist, P. (2010). Out of sight, out of mind: family resemblance in lesbian donor conception. Sociology, 44, 1128–1144.
33. Nordqvist, P. (2012). Origins and originators: lesbian couples negotiating parental identities and sperm donor conception. Culture, Health and Sexuality, 14, 297–311.
34. Peddie, V.L, Porter, M., Counsell, C, Caie, L, Pearson, D, & Bhattacharya, S. (2009). “ Not taken in by media hype”: how potential donors, recipients and members of the general public perceive stem cell research. Human Reproduction, 24, 1106–1113.
35. Potter, M. & Bhattacharya, S. (2008). Helping themselves to get pregnant: a qualitative longitudinal study on the informationseeking behavior of infertile couples. Human Reproduction, 23, 567–572.
36. Rodino, I.S., Burton, P.J, & Sanders, K.A. (2011). Donor information considered important to donors, recipients and off spring: an Australian perspective. Reproductive BioMedicine Online, 22, 303–311.
37. Stuart-Smith, S.J, Smith, J.A, & Scott, E.J. (2012). To know or not to know? Dilemmas for women receiving unknown oocyte donation. Human Reproduction, 27, 2067–2075.
38. Van den Broeck, U, Vandermeeren, M., Vanderschueren, D, Enzlin, P, Demyttenaere, K, D’ Hooghe, T. (2013). A systematic review of sperm donors: demographic characteristics, attitudes, motives and experiences of the process of sperm donation. Human Reproduction Update, 19, 37–51.