Blyth, Eric (2008) Donor insemination and the dilemma of the “unknown father”. In: ) Umwege zum eigenen Kind Ethische und rechtliche Herausforderungen an die Reproduktionsmedizin 30 Jahre nach Louise Brown. Universitätsverlag Göttingen, Gottingen, Germany, pp. 157-174. ISBN 978-3-940344-46-5
Abstract

As has been the pattern worldwide, the provision of donor insemination (DI) - and
subsequently other forms of donor conception - in the UK has traditionally been
characterised by withholding the identities of donors and recipients and of donors
and their donor-conceived offspring from each other. Furthermore, recipients of
donor gametes were frequently advised not to tell anyone, including their children,
of their recourse to donor conception.1 Inter-related factors promoting such practices
include:
• the dubious legal and moral status of donor conception (including explicit
disapproval from several major world religions) – with consequent concerns
about the impact on the child and other family members if knowledge of
donor conception became “common knowledge”.2
• suspicions about sperm donors’ personality and motivation.3
• recipients’ ambivalence about the use of donor conception – especially DI.4
• uncertainties about the impact on the child of knowledge of the circumstances
of their conception (or assumptions that such knowledge would be
damaging).5
• uncertainties about the donor’s legal or financial responsibilities towards the
child and to protect them from unintended/undesired contact or responsibilities.
6
• uncertain legal status of the child – and fears of prosecution/conviction for
falsification of birth registration information.7
• stigma associated with male infertility in particular and families desires - and
the opportunity - to “pass as normal”.8
• potential consequences of the parents’ imbalanced genetic relationship with
the child and fears of the child’s rejection of the non-genetic parent.9
• fears of unwanted intrusion by the donor in family affairs.10
• initial reliance on fresh sperm, requiring management of the geographical
and temporal proximity of donor and recipient.11
• parents’ uncertainties about the timing and method of telling their child and
the lack of information to give the child, making “not telling” – at least superficially
- an easier option.12
• physicians’ concerns about their potential exposure to critical external scrutiny,
including risk of claims of unprofessional/illegal practice.13
• need to maintain donor services in the face of the assumed adverse impact
of disclosure on supply.14

Information
Library
Statistics
Add to AnyAdd to TwitterAdd to FacebookAdd to LinkedinAdd to PinterestAdd to Email