Absence or presence? Complexities in the donor narratives of single mothers using sperm donation

Human Reproduction

Volumn 31, Issue 1, 2016, Pages 117-124

  Zadeh, S ^a   Freeman, T ^a   Golombok, S ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Family narratives; Identity release donation; Information provision; Single motherhood; Sperm donation

Indexed keywords

CHILD; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CONCEPTION; CONFLICT OF INTEREST; COUNSELING; DOCTOR PATIENT RELATION; FAMILY LIFE; FAMILY STUDY; FEMALE; FERTILITY; FUNDING; GAMETE; HETEROSEXUALITY; HUMAN; IDENTITY; INTERVIEW; MARRIAGE; MOTHER; NARRATIVE; SINGLE WOMAN; SPERM DONOR; STAFF; STUDY DESIGN; THEMATIC ANALYSIS; TRUST; ADULT; ARTIFICIAL INSEMINATION; DONOR; GREAT BRITAIN; LITERATURE; MALE; PSYCHOLOGY; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH; SINGLE PARENT; SPERMATOZOON; TRANSPLANTATION;

ADULT; FEMALE; GREAT BRITAIN; HUMANS; INSEMINATION, ARTIFICIAL; MALE; MOTHERS; PERSONAL NARRATIVES AS TOPIC; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH; SINGLE PARENT; SPERMATOZOA; TISSUE AND ORGAN PROCUREMENT; TISSUE DONORS;

EID: 84957569449     PISSN: 02681161     EISSN: 14602350     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/humrep/dev275     Document Type: Article

References (47)

1. Becker G. The Elusive Embryo: How Women and men Approach new Reproductive Technologies. London, UK: California University Press, 2000.
2. Becker G, Butler A, Nachtigall RD. Resemblance talk: A challenge for parents whose childrenwere conceived with donor gametes in the US. Soc Sci Med 2005;61: 1300-1309.
3. Bielawska-Batorowicz E. Artificial insemination by donor-an investigation of recipient couples' viewpoints. J Reprod Infant Psychol 1994;12: 123-136.
4. Blake L, Casey P, Jadva V, Golombok S. "I was quite amazed": Donor conception and parent-child relationships from the child's perspective. Child Soc 2014;28: 425-437.
5. Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol 2006;3: 77-101.
6. Braverman AM, Frith L. Relatedness in clinical practice. In: Freeman T, Graham S, Ebtehaj F, Richards M (eds). Relatedness in Assisted Reproduction: Families, Origins and Identities. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2014, 129-146.
7. Brewaeys M, de Bruyn JK, Louwe LA, Helmerhorst FM. Anonymous or identity-registered sperm donors? A study of Dutch recipients' choices. Hum Reprod 2005;20: 820-824.
8. Burr J. Fear, fascination and the sperm donor as 'abjection' in interviews with heterosexual recipients of donor insemination. Sociol Health Ill 2009; 31: 705-718.
9. Chabot JM, Ames BD. "It wasn't 'let's get pregnant and go do it'": Decision making in lesbian couples planning motherhood via donor insemination. Fam Relat 2004;53: 348-356.
10. De Wert G, Dondorp W, Shenfield F, Barri P, Devroey P, Diedrich K, Tarlatzis B, Provoost V, Pennings G. ESHRE task force on ethics and law 23: Medically assisted reproduction in singles, lesbian and gay couples, and transsexual people. Hum Reprod 2014;29: 1859-1865.
11. Ehrensaft D. Alternatives to the stork: Fatherhood fantasies in donor insemination families. Stud Gend Sex 2000;1: 371-397.
12. Ehrensaft D. The stork didn't bring me, I came from a dish: Psychological experiences of children conceived through assisted reproductive technology. J Infant Child Adolesc Psychother 2007;6: 124-140.
13. Ehrensaft D. Just Molly and me, and donor makes three: Lesbian motherhood in the age of assisted reproductive technology. J Lesbian Stud 2008; 12: 161-178.
14. Flick U. An Introduction to Qualitative Research, 5th edn. London, UK: Sage, 2014.
15. Freeman T. Introduction. In: Freeman T, Graham S, Ebtehaj F, Richards M (eds). Relatedness in Assisted Reproduction: Families, Origins and Identities. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2014, 1-8.
16. Freeman T. Gamete donation, information sharing and the best interests of the child: An overview of the psychosocial evidence. Monash Bioeth Rev 2015;33: 45-63.
17. GodmanKM, SandersK, RosenbergM, Burton P. Potential spermdonors', recipients' and their partners' opinions towards the release of identifying information in Western Australia. Hum Reprod 2006; 21: 3022-3026.
18. Goldberg AE, Scheib JE. Female-partnered and single women's contact motivations and experiences with donor-linked families. Hum Reprod 2015;30: 1375-1385.
19. Grace VM, Daniels K. The (ir)relevance of genetics: Engendering parallel worlds of procreation and reproduction. Sociol Health Ill 2007; 29: 692-710.
20. Grace VM, Daniels K, Gillett W. The donor, the father, and the imaginary constitution of the family: Parents' constructions in the case of donor insemination. Soc Sci Med 2008;66: 301-314.
21. Graham S. Stories of an absent 'father': Singlewomen negotiating relatedness through donor profiles. In: Freeman T, Graham S, Ebtehaj F, Richards M (eds). Relatedness in Assisted Reproduction: Families, Origins and Identities. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2014, 212-231.
22. Hertz R. Single by Chance, Mothers by Choice: How Women are Choosing Parenthood Without Marriage and Creating the new American Family. New York, USA: Oxford University Press, 2006.
23. Hertz R, Ferguson FIT. Kinship strategies and self-sufficiency among single mothers by choice: Postmodern family ties. Qual Sociol 1997;20: 187-209.
24. HFEA. Code of Practice 8th Edition. http://www.hfea.gov.uk/docs/ Code-of-Practice-8-October-2013.pdf (11th August 2015, date last accessed), 2013.
25. HFEA. Egg and Sperm Donation in the UK: 2012-2013. http://www.hfea.gov .uk/docs/Egg-and-sperm-donation-in-The-UK-2012-2013.pdf (28th May 2015, date last accessed), 2014.
26. Hudson N, Culley L. Infertility, gamete donation and relatedness in British South Asian communities. In: Freeman T, Graham S, Ebtehaj F, Richards M (eds). Relatedness in Assisted Reproduction: Families, Origins and Identities. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2014, 232-250.
27. Indekeu A, D'Hooghe T, Daniels KR, Dierickx K, Rober P. When 'sperm' becomes 'donor': Transitions in parents' views of the sperm donor. Hum Fertil 2014;17: 269-277.
28. Kirkman M. Parents' contributions to the narrative identity of offspring of donor-assisted conception. Soc Sci Med 2003;57: 2229-2242.
29. Kirkman M. Genetic connection and relationships in narratives of donor-assisted conception. AJETS 2004a;2: 1-20.
30. Kirkman M. Saviours and satyrs: Ambivalence in narrative meanings of sperm provision. Cult Health Sex 2004b;6: 319-334.
31. Klock SC, Jacob MC, Maier D. A comparison of single and married recipients of donor insemination. Hum Reprod 1996;11: 2554-2557.
32. Landau R, Weissenberg R. Disclosure of donor conception in single mother families: Views and concerns. Hum Reprod 2010;25: 942-948.
33. Leiblum SR, Palmer MG, Spector IP. Non-traditional mothers: Single heterosexual/lesbian women and lesbian couples electing motherhood via donor insemination. J Psychosom Obstet Gynaecol 1995;16: 11-20.
34. Mamo L. Biomedicalizing kinship: Sperm banks and the creation of affinity-ties. Sci Cult (Lond) 2005;14: 237-264.
35. Nordqvist P. Out of sight, out of mind: Family resemblances in lesbian donor conception. Sociology 2010;44: 1128-1144.
36. Nordqvist P. 'I don't want us to stand out more than we already do': Complexities and negotiations in lesbian couples' accounts of becoming a family through donor conception. Sexualities 2012;15: 644-661.
37. Ravelingien A, Provoost V, Wyverkens E, Buysse A, De Sutter P, Pennings G. Recipients' views on payment of sperm donors. Reprod Biomed Online 2015;31: 225-231.
38. Rodino IS, Burton PJ, Sanders KA. Donor information considered important to donors, recipients and offspring: An Australian perspective. Reprod Biomed Online 2011a;22: 303-311.
39. Rodino IS, Burton PJ, Sanders KA. Mating by proxy: A novel perspective to donor conception. Fertil Steril 2011b;96: 998-1001.
40. Scheib JE, Cushing RA. Open-identity donor insemination in the United States: Is it on the rise? Fertil Steril 2007;88: 231-232.
41. Scheib JE, Riordan M, Shaver PR. Choosing between anonymous and identity-release sperm donors: Recipient and donor characteristics. Reprod Tech 2000;10: 50-58.
42. Scheib JE, Riordan M, Rubin S. Choosing identity-release sperm donors: The parents' perspective 13-18 years later. Hum Reprod 2003;18: 1115-1127.
43. Stuart-Smith SJ, Smith JA, Scott EJ. To know or not to know? Dilemmas for women receiving unknown oocyte donation. Hum Reprod 2012; 27: 2067-2075.
44. Vanfraussen K, Ponjaert-Kristoffersen I, Brewaeys A. An attempt to reconstruct children's donor concept: A comparison between children's and lesbian parents' attitudes towards donor anonymity. Hum Reprod 2001;16: 2019-2025.
45. Wyverkens E, Provoost V, Ravelingien A, De Sutter P, Pennings G, Buysse A. Beyond sperm cells: A qualitative study on constructed meanings of the sperm donor in lesbian families. Hum Reprod 2014;29: 1248-1254.
46. Wyverkens E, Provoost V, Ravelingien A, Pennings G, De Sutter P, Buysse A. The meaning of the sperm donor for heterosexual couples: Confirming the position of the father. Fam Process 2015;doi: 10.1111/famp.12156.
47. Zadeh S, Freeman T, Golombok S. Ambivalent identities of single women using sperm donation. Rev Int Psychol Soc 2013;26: 97-123.