Search:
Computing and Library Services - delivering an inspiring information environment

Anonymity in donor-assisted conception and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child

Blyth, Eric and Farrand, Abigail (2004) Anonymity in donor-assisted conception and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. The International Journal of Children’s Rights, 12 (2). pp. 89-104. ISSN 0927-5568

[img] PDF
Restricted to Registered users only

Download (122kB)

    Abstract

    What is now known as donor insemination (DI) has been practised for at least
    several hundred years (Novaes, 1998). In what appears to be the first detailed
    account of its successful use, in Philadelphia in 1884...

    Item Type: Article
    Additional Information: UoA 40 (Social Work and Social Policy and Administration) Reproduced by permission of International Journal of Children's Rights, published by Koninklijke Brill NV. © 2004. Koninklijke Brill NV.
    Subjects: R Medicine > R Medicine (General)
    R Medicine > RG Gynecology and obstetrics
    R Medicine > RJ Pediatrics > RJ101 Child Health. Child health services
    Schools: School of Human and Health Sciences
    School of Human and Health Sciences > Centre for Applied Childhood Studies
    Related URLs:
    References:

    Aird, I., Barratt, C., Murdoch, A. and the British Fertility Society Committee, “BFS recommendations
    for good practice on the screening of egg and embryo donors”, Human
    Fertility 2000 (3), 162–165.
    Barton, M., Walker, K. and Wiesner, B., “Artificial insemination”, British Medical Journal
    1945 13 January, 40–3.
    Blyth, E., “Donor assisted conception and donor offspring rights to genetic origins information”,
    International Journal of Children’s Rights 1998 (6 (3)) 237–253.
    Blyth, E., “Information on genetic origins information in donor-assisted conception: is
    knowing who you are a human rights issue?”, Human Fertility 2002 (5), 185–192.
    Blyth, E. and Landau, R. (eds.), Third Party Assisted Conception Across Cultures: Social,
    Legal and Ethical Perspectives. (London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers, 2004).
    Brewaeys, A., “Donor insemination: the impact on family and child development”, Journal
    of Psychosomatic Obstetrics and Gynecology 1996 (17), 1–13.
    Brewaeys, A., Golombok, S., Naaktgeboren, N., de Bruyn, J.K. and van Hall, E.V., “Donor
    insemination: Dutch parents’ opinions about confidentiality and donor anonymity and
    the emotional adjustment of their children”, Human Reproduction 1997 (12),
    1591–1597.
    British Medical Association, Changing Conceptions of Motherhood: The Practice of
    Surrogacy in Britain. (London: BMA, 1996).
    Cook, R., Golombok, S., Bish, A. and Murray, C., “Disclosure of donor insemination:
    parental attitudes”, American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 1995 (65 (4)), 549–559.
    Council of Europe, Medically Assisted Procreation and the Protection of the Human
    Embryo Comparative Study on the Situation in 39 States. (Strasbourg: Council of
    Europe, 1998).
    Daniels, K., “The sperm providers”, in K. Daniels and E. Haimes (eds.), Donor Insemination: International Social Science Perspectives. (Cambridge: Cambridge
    University Press, 1998).
    Department of Health and Social Security, Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Human
    Fertilisation and Embryology (Warnock Report) (Cmnd. 9314). (London: HMSO,
    1984).
    Department of Health, Welsh Office, Home Office and Lord Chancellor’s Department,
    Adoption: the Future (Cm 2288). (London: HMSO, 1993).
    DI Network, “DI Network position on anonymity”, DI Network News 1999/2000 (14),
    1–2.
    Donor Conception Support Group of Australia Inc., Let the Offspring Speak: Discussions
    on Donor Conception. (Georges Hall, New South Wales: Donor Conception Support
    Group of Australia Inc., 1997).
    Fortescue, E., “Gamete donation – where is the evidence that there are benefits in removing
    the anonymity of donors? A patient’s viewpoint”, Reproductive BioMedicine
    Online 2003 (7 (2)), 139–144.
    Freeman, M., “The new birth right? Identity and the child of the reproduction revolution”,
    The International Journal of Children’s Rights 1996 (4), 273–297.
    Golombok, S., Cook, R., Bish, A. and Murray, C., “Families created by the new reproductive
    technologies: quality of parenting and social and emotional development of the
    children”, Child Development 1995 (66), 285–298.
    Golombok, S., Brewaeys, A., Cook, R., Giavazzi, M., Guerra, D., Mantoyani, A., van Hall, E.,
    Crosignani, P. and Dexeus, S., “The European study of assisted conception families:
    family functioning and child development”, Human Reproduction 1996 (11), 2324–
    2331.
    Golombok, S., Brewaeys, A., Giavazzi, M., Guerra, D., MacCallum, F. and Rust, J., “The
    European study of assisted conception families: the transition to adolescence”, Human
    Reproduction 2002a (17), 830–840.
    Golombok, S., Lycett, E., MacCallum, F., Jadva, V., Murray, C., Abdalla, S., Jenkins, J.,
    Magara, R. and Rust, J., “Parenting children conceived by gamete donation: Findings
    from a new millennium cohort” (personal communication 21 November 2002b).
    Gottlieb, C., Lalos, O. and Lindblad, F., “Disclosure of donor insemination to the child: the
    impact of Swedish legislation on couples’ attitudes”, Human Reproduction 2000 (9),
    2052–2056.
    Gregoire, A. and Mayer, R., “The impregnators”, Fertility and Sterility 1964 (16 (1)),
    130–134.
    Imber-Black, E., (ed.), Secrets in Families and Family Therapy. (New York: W.W. Norton,
    1993).
    Imber-Black, E., The Secret Life of Families: How Secrets Shape Relationships – When and
    How to Tell (London: Thorsons, 1998).
    International Federation of Fertility Societies, IFFS International Consensus. (Montpellier:
    IFFS, 2001).
    Karpel, M.A., “Family Secrets: I. Conceptual and ethical issues in the relational context.
    II. Ethical and practical considerations in therapeutic management”, Family Process
    1980 (19), 295–306.
    King’s Fund Centre, Counselling for Regulated Infertility Treatments: the Report of the
    Counselling Committee. (London: King’s Fund Centre, 1991).
    Lestor, J., “A Minister for Children”, in B. Franklin (ed.); The Handbook of Children’s
    Rights (London: Routledge, 1995).
    Lindblad, F., Gottlieb, S. and Lalos, O., “Donor insemination and parental attitudes to disclosure”,
    Journal of Psychosomatic Obstetrics and Gynecology 2000 (21), 193–203.
    McWhinnie, A.M., Families Following Assisted Conception: What Do We Tell Our Child?
    (Dundee: Department of Social Work, University of Dundee, 1996).
    Murdoch, A., “Reply on behalf of the BFS Policy and Practice Committee” (letter), Human
    Fertility 2001 (4), 50.
    Novaes, S., “The medical management of donor insemination”, in K.R. Daniels and
    E. Haimes (eds.), Donor Insemination: International Social Science Perspectives
    (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998).
    Pennings, G., “The ‘double track’ policy for donor anonymity”, Human Reproduction 1997
    (12), 2839–2844.
    Ramsey, S., Keeping secrets and telling stories: opening address at Donor Issues Forum,
    organised by the South Australian Council on Reproductive Technology, Adelaide, 30
    May 1998.
    Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, Donor Insemination (London: RCOG,
    1987).
    Royal Commission on New Reproductive and Genetic Technologies., Proceed with Care
    (Ottawa: Minister of Government Services, 1993).
    Scheib, J.E., Riordan, M. and Rubin, S., “Choosing identity-releasesm sperm donors: The
    parents’ perspective 13 to 18 years later”, Human Reproduction 2003 (18), 1115–1127.
    Snowden, R. and Mitchell, G.D., The Artificial Family: A Consideration of Artificial
    Insemination by Donor (London: George Allen and Unwin, 1981).
    Snowden, R., Mitchell, G.D. and Snowden, E.M., Artificial Reproduction: A Social
    Investigation (London: George Allen and Unwin, 1983).
    Sorosky, A.D., Baran, A. and Pannor, R., The Adoption Triangle: Sealed or Open Records:
    How They Affect Adoptees, Birth Parents and Adoptive Parents (New York: Anchor
    Press-Doubleday, 1984).
    Triseliotis, J., In Search of Origins (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1973).
    United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child, Consideration of Reports Submitted
    by States Parties Under Article 44 of the Convention: France. CRC/C/3/Add.15 4 June.
    (Geneva: United Nations, 1993a).
    United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child, Consideration of Reports Submitted
    by States Parties Under Article 44 of the Convention: Norway. CRC/C/8/Add.7. 12
    October. (Geneva: United Nations, 1993b).
    United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child, Consideration of Reports Submitted
    by States Parties Under Article 44 of the Convention: Denmark. CRC/C/8/Add.8. 12
    October. (Geneva: United Nations, 1993c).
    United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child, Consideration of Reports Submitted
    by States Parties Under Article 44 of the Convention: Concluding Observations:
    France. CRC/C/15/Add.20. 25 April. (Geneva: United Nations, 1994a).
    United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child, Consideration of Reports Submitted
    by States Parties Under Article 44 of the Convention: Concluding Observations:
    Norway. Ref CRC/C/15/Add.23. 25 April. (Geneva: United Nations, 1994b).
    United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child, Consideration of Reports Submitted
    by States Parties Under Article 44 of the Convention: Concluding Observations:
    Denmark. Ref CRC/C/15/Add.33, 15 February. (Geneva: United Nations, 1995).
    United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child, Consideration of Reports Submitted
    by States Parties Under Article 44 of the Convention: Austria. CRC/C/11/Add.14. 26
    June. (Geneva: United Nations, 1997).
    United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child, Consideration of Reports Submitted
    by States Parties Under Article 44 of the Convention: Sweden. CRC/C/65/Add.3.11
    February. (Geneva: United Nations, 1998a).
    United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child, Consideration of Reports Submitted
    by States Parties Under Article 44 of the Convention: Norway. CRC/C/70/Add.2.12
    November. (Geneva: United Nations, 1998b).
    United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child, Summary Record of 626th Meeting:
    Norway. CRC/C/SR.625. 25 May. (Geneva: United Nations, 2000a).
    United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child, Summary Record of 626th Meeting:
    Norway. CRC/C/SR.626. 26 May. (Geneva: United Nations, 2000b).
    United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child, Consideration of Reports Submitted
    by States Parties Under Article 44 of the Convention: Concluding Observations:
    Norway. CRC/C/15.Add.126. 28 June. (Geneva: United Nations, 2000c).
    United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child, Consideration of Reports Submitted
    by States Parties Under Article 44 of the Convention: Denmark. Ref CRC/C/70/Add.6.
    31 March. (Geneva: United Nations, 2000d).
    United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child, Consideration of Reports Submitted
    by States Parties Under Article 44 of the Convention: Switzerland. CRC/C/3/Add.3. 19
    October. (Geneva: United Nations, 2001a).
    United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child, Consideration of Reports Submitted
    by States Parties Under Article 44 of the Convention: Greece. CRC/C/28/Add.17. 25
    June. (Geneva: United Nations, 2001b).
    United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child, Consideration of Reports Submitted
    by States Parties Under Article 44 of the Convention: Spain. CRC/C/70/Add.9. 12
    November. June. (Geneva: United Nations, 2001c).
    United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child, Consideration of Reports Submitted
    by States Parties Under Article 44 of the Convention. Concluding Observations:
    Denmark. CRC/C/15/Add.151. 10 July. (Geneva: United Nations, 2001d).
    United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child, Summary Record of 754th Meeting:
    Greece. CRC/C/SR.754. 1 March. (Geneva: United Nations, 2002a).
    United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child, Consideration of Reports Submitted
    by States Parties Under Article 44 of the Convention: Concluding Observations:
    Switzerland. CRC/C/15/Add.182. 7 June. (Geneva: United Nations, 2002b).
    United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child, Consideration of Reports Submitted
    by States Parties Under Article 44 of the Convention: Concluding Observations:
    United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. CRC/C/15/Add.188. 9
    October. (Geneva: United Nations, 2002c).
    United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child, Consideration of Reports Submitted
    by States Parties Under Article 44 of the Convention: Concluding Observations:
    Greece. CRC/C/15/Add.170. 1 February. (Geneva: United Nations, 2002d).
    United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child, Consideration of Reports Submitted
    by States Parties Under Article 44 of the Convention: New Zealand. CRC/C/93/Add.4.
    12 March. (Geneva: United Nations, 2003a).
    United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child, Consideration of Reports Submitted
    by States Parties Under Article 44 of the Convention: Netherlands. CRC/C/117/Add.1.
    5 June. (Geneva: United Nations, 2003b).
    Waller, L., Report on Donor Gametes in IVF. (Melbourne: Committee to Consider the
    Social, Ethical And Legal Issues

    Depositing User: Sara Taylor
    Date Deposited: 14 May 2007
    Last Modified: 05 Jan 2011 16:13
    URI: http://eprints.hud.ac.uk/id/eprint/171

    Document Downloads

    Downloader Countries

    More statistics for this item...

    Item control for Repository Staff only:

    View Item

    University of Huddersfield, Queensgate, Huddersfield, HD1 3DH Copyright and Disclaimer All rights reserved ©