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

Donor anonymity and secrecy versus openness concerning the genetic origins of the offspring: international perspectives

Blyth, Eric (2006) Donor anonymity and secrecy versus openness concerning the genetic origins of the offspring: international perspectives. Assia: Jewish Medical Ethics, 2. pp. 4-13.

Metadata only available from this repository.

Abstract

What is now known as donor insemination (DI) has been practiced for at least several hundred years (Novaes, 1998). Professor William Pancoast’s insemination of a female patient in Philadelphia in 1884, using sperm from his ‘best looking’ medical student, is frequently cited as the first detailed account of its successful use as a ‘medical’ procedure. The woman, who had been anaesthetised prior to her insemination, did not know what had been done to her and, although her husband was aware of his wife’s insemination, he was instructed never to tell her. It is likely their son did not know of the circumstances of his conception, although he may have met his donor. One of Pancoast’s students, Addison Hard, claimed that, several years later, he had ‘shake[n] the hand of the young man’ who had been conceived following Pancoast’s ministrations (thus inviting speculation that Hard himself had been the donor) (Gregoire and Mayer, 1965; Daniels, 1998).

I mention this story since, while we have stopped anaesthetising women prior to insemination and, as far as I know, women are no longer inseminated without their knowledge or permission, the principles of secrecy and anonymity in donor conception have survived for over a century.

For example, as recently as 1987, the UK’s Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists was advising prospective DI recipients: ‘unless you reveal [DI conception] to your child, there is no reason for him or her ever to know that he or she was conceived by donor insemination’ (Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, 1987, p. 3).

Item Type: Article
Subjects: H Social Sciences > H Social Sciences (General)
Schools: School of Human and Health Sciences
School of Human and Health Sciences > Centre for Applied Childhood Studies
Related URLs:
References:

· Abdalla, H., Shenfield, F. and Latarche, E. (1998) Statutory information for the children born of oocyte donation in the UK: What will they be told in 2008? Human Reproduction 13 1106-1109.

· Adair, V. and Purdie, A. (1996) Donor insemination programmes with personal donors: issues of secrecy. Human Reproduction 11, 2558–2563.

· Anonymous (2002) How it feels to be a child of donor insemination. British Medical Journal 324, 797 (http://bmj.com/cgi/content/full/324/7340/797/DI1 - accessed 8 April 2002).

· Bielawska-Batorowicz, E. (2004) Poland: provision and guidelines for third party assisted conception. In E. Blyth and R. Landau (eds) Third Party Assisted Conception Across Cultures: Social, Legal and Ethical Perspectives. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

· Blood, J., Pitt, P., Baker, G. and Foster, P. (2001) Parents’ decision to inform children of their donor (sperm) conception and the impact of a register which legislates to enable identification of donors. Paper presented at the 17th World Congress on Fertility and Sterility, Melbourne.

· Blyth, E. (1998) Donor assisted conception and donor offspring rights to genetic origins information, International Journal of Children’s Rights 6, 3, 237-253.

· Blyth, E. (2002) Information on genetic origins information in donor-assisted conception: is knowing who you are a human rights issue? Human Fertility 5, 185-192.

· Blyth, E. (2003) The recruitment of identifiable donors: messages from overseas. PROGAR Briefing Paper No 2. Birmingham: Project Group on Assisted Reproduction, British Association of Social Workers.

· Blyth, E. (2004) Patient experiences of an ‘egg sharing’ programme. Human Fertility 7, 3, 157-162.

· Blyth, E. and Farrand, A. (2004) Anonymity in donor-assisted conception and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. International Journal of Children’s Rights 12, 89-104.

· Blyth, E. and Speirs, J. (2004) Meeting the rights and needs of donor-conceived people: the contribution of a voluntary contact register. Nordisk Socialt Arbeid 24, 4, 318-330.

· Blyth, E. and Hunt, J. (1998) Sharing genetic origins information in donor assisted conception: views from licensed centres on HFEA Donor Information Form (91) 4. Human Reproduction 13, 3274-3277.

· Braverman, A. (1993) Survey results on the current practice of ovum donation. Fertility and Sterility 59, 1216-1220.

· Brewaeys, A. (1996) Donor insemination: the impact on family and child development. Journal of Psychosomatic and Obstetric Gynecololgy 17, 1-13.

· Brewaeys, A., de Bruyn, J. K., Louwe, L. A. and Helmerhorst, F. M. (2005) “Anonymous or identity-registered sperm donors? A study of Dutch recipients’ choices.” Human Reproduction doi:10.1093/humrep/deh708.

· Brewaeys, A., Golombok, S., Naaktgeboren, N., de Bruyn, J. and van Hall, E. (1997) Donor insemination: Dutch parents’ opinions about confidentiality and donor anonymity and the emotional adjustment of their children. Human Reproduction 12, 1591-1597.

· California Cryobank Inc. (undated) When you Succeed, we Succeed. Los Angeles: California Cryobank Inc.

· Cook, R., Golombok, S., Bish, A. and Murray, C. (1995) Disclosure of donor insemination: parental attitudes. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 65, 4, 549-559.

· Cordray, A. W. (1999/2000) A survey of people conceived through donor insemination. DI Network News 14, 4-5.

· Craft, I. and Thornhill, A. (2005) Will removal of anonymity influence the recruitment of egg donors? A survey of past donors and recipients. Reproductive Biomedicine Online 10, 3, 325-329.

· Daniels, K. (1998) The sperm providers. In Daniels, K. and Haimes, E. (eds) Donor insemination: international social science perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

· Department of Health (2004) Anonymity to be removed from future sperm, egg and embryo donors: donor-conceived children gain right to information on genetic origins. Press release 2004/0023, 21 January. London: Department of Health.

· Department of Health, Welsh Office, Home Office and Lord Chancellor’s Department (1993) Adoption: the Future. (Cm 2288). London: HMSO.

· Department of Health and Social Security (1984) Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Human Fertilisation and Embryology (The Warnock Report), Cmnd. 9414. HMSO, London.

· Donor Conception Support Group of Australia Inc (1997) Let the offspring speak: discussions on donor conception. Georges Hall, New South Wales: Donor Conception Support Group of Australia Inc.

· Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (2004) Informing offspring of their conception by gamete donation. Fertility and Sterility 81, 3, 527-531.

· Fatemi, S M G S and Akhondi, M A (2003) Egg donation: A comparative study of Shi`i Fiqh and the Iranian legal system. Paper given at International Egg Donation Conference, University of Westminster, London February.

· Festing, S. (1999/2000) Brothers and sisters have I many. DI Network News 14, 5.

· Flekkøy, M. G. and Kaufman, N. H. (1997) The Participation Rights of the Child: Rights and Responsibilities in Family and Society. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

· Franz, S. and Allen, D. (2001) Report to Health Canada on ‘The Offspring Speak – An International Conference of Donor Offspring 12 August 2000. Toronto: Infertility Network.

· Freeman, M. (1996) The new birth right? Identity and the child of the reproduction revolution. The International Journal of Children’s Rights 4, 273-297.

· Gollancz, D. (2001) Donor insemination – a question of rights. Human Fertility 4, 164-167.

· Golombok, S., Cook, R., Bish, A. and Murray, C. (1995) Families created by the new reproductive technologies: quality of parenting and social and emotional development of the children. Child Development 66, 285-298.

· Golombok, S., Brewaeys, A., Cook, R., Giavazzi, M., Guerra, F., Mantovani, A., van Hall, E., Crosignani, P. and Dexeus, S. (1996) The European study of assisted conception families: family functioning and child development. Human Reproduction 11, 2324-2331.

· Golombok, S., Brewaeys, A., Giavazzi, M., Guerra, F., MacCallum, F. and Rust, J. (2002a) The European study of assisted conception families: the transition to adolescence. Human Reproduction 17, 830-840.

· Golombok, S., MacCallum, F., Goodman, E. and Rutter, M. (2002b) Families with children conceived by donor insemination: A follow-up at age 12. Child Development, 73, 952-968.

· Gottlieb, C., Lalos, O. and Lindblad, F. (2000) Disclosure of donor insemination to the child: the impact of Swedish legislation on couples’ attitudes. Human Reproduction 9, 2052-2056.

· Gregoire, A. and Mayer, R. (1964) The impregnators. Fertility and Sterility 16, 130-134.

· Hamilton, R. (2002) Donor-conceived adults challenge the ethics of anonymity. Journal of Fertility Counselling 9, 1, 33-34.

· Hewitt, G. (2002) Missing links: identity issues of donor-conceived people. Journal of Fertility Counselling 9, 3, 14-20.

· Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (2005a) Who are the UK’s sperm donors? Fertility regulator presents national picture of the people who donate: Stereotype of hard-up medical students a thing of the past. Press release. 7 October London: Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority.

· Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (2005b) SEED Report: Review of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority’s review of sperm, egg and embryo donation in the UK. London: Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority.

· Hunter, M., Salter-Ling, N. and Glover, L. (2000) Donor insemination: telling children about their origins. Child Psychology and Psychiatry Review 5,157–163.

· Imber-Black, E. (ed) (1993) Secrets in families and family therapy. New York: WW Norton.

· Imber-Black, E. (1998) The secret life of families: how secrets shape relationships – when and how to tell. London: Thorsons.

· International Federation of Fertility Societies (2001) IFFS International Consensus. Montpellier: International Federation of Fertility Societies.

· Johnson, M. (2004) Keynote speech at Annual conference of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, London, 21 January.

· Karpel, M. A. (1980) Family Secrets: I. Conceptual and ethical issues in the relational context. II. Ethical and practical considerations in therapeutic management. Family Process 19, 295-306.

· Kirkland, A., Power, M., Burton, G., Baber, R., Studd, J. and Abdalla, H. (1992) Comparison of attitudes of donors and recipients to oocyte donation. Human Reproduction 7, 355-357.

· Kirkman, M. (2003) Parents’ contribution to the narrative identity of offspring of donor-assisted conception. Social Science and Medicine 57, 11, 2229–2242.

· Lindblad, F., Gottlieb, S. and Lalos, O. (2000) Donor insemination and parental attitudes to disclosure. Journal of Psychosomatic Obstetrics and Gynecology 21, 193-203.

· Lorbach, C. (2003) Experiences of donor conception: parents, offspring and donors through the years. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

· Lycett, E., Daniels, K.,Curson, R. and Golombok, S. (2004) Offspring created as a result of donor insemination: a study of family relationships, child adjustment, and disclosure. Fertility and Sterility 82, 172–179.

· Lycett, E., Daniels, K., Curson, R. and Golombok, S. (2005) School-aged children of donor insemination: a study of parents’ disclosure patterns. Human Reproduction doi:10.1093/humrep/deh703.

· Maclean, S. and Maclean, M. (1996) Keeping secrets in assisted reproduction – The tension between donor anonymity and the need of the child for information. Child and Family Law Quarterly 8, 243-251.

· McWhinnie, A. M. (1996) Families following assisted conception: what do we tell our child? Dundee: Department of Social Work: University of Dundee.

· Murdoch, A. (2001) Reply on behalf of the BFS Policy and Practice Committee (letter). Human Fertility 4, 50.

· Nachtigall, R. D., Tschann, J., Szkupinski Quigora, S., Pitcher, L. and Becker, G. (1997) Stigma, disclosure and family functioning among parents of children conceived through donor insemination. Fertility and Sterility 68, 83–89.

· Nachtigall, R. D., Becker, G., Szkupinski Quigora, S. and Tschann, J. (1998) The disclosure decision: concerns and issues of parents of children conceived through donor insemination. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 178, 1165–1170.

· Ng, E., Liu, A., Chan, C. and Chan, C. (2004) Hong Kong: a social legal and clinical overview. In E. Blyth and R. Landau (eds) op cit.

· Novaes, S. (1998) The medical management of donor insemination. In K. R. Daniels and E. Haimes (eds) op cit.

· The Observer (1989) A taste for opposition. 26 March.

· Ow, R. (2004) Singapore: practices and challenges. In E. Blyth and R. Landau (eds) op cit.

· Pennings, G. (1997) The ‘double track’ policy for donor anonymity. Human Reproduction 12, 2839-44.

· Power, M., Baber, R., Abdalla, H., Kikland, A., Leonard, T. and Studd, J. (1990) A comparison of the attitudes of volunteer donors and infertile patient donors on an ovum donation programme. Human Reproduction 5, 352-355.

· Raboy, B. (1993) Secrecy and openness in donor insemination: A new paradigm. Politics and the Life Sciences 12, 191-192.

· Ramsey, S. (1998) Keeping Secrets and Telling Stories. Opening Address at Donor Issues Forum, organised by the South Australian Council on Reproductive Technology, Adelaide, 30 May.

· Rose, J. (2001) Exploring the Caves: Reflections on the Problems and Ethics of Being Conceived from ‘Donor’ Sperm (unpublished BA [Hons] dissertation). Brisbane: Queensland University of Technology.

· Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (1987) Donor Insemination Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, London

· Royal Commission on New Reproductive and Genetic Technologies (1993) Proceed with Care. Ottawa: Minister of Government Services.

· Rumball, A. and Adair, V. (1999) Telling the story: parents’ scripts for donor offspring. Human Reproduction 14, 1392-1399.

· Scheib, J. E., Riordan, M. and Rubin, S. (2003) Choosing identity-releasesm sperm donors: The parents’ perspective 13 to 18 years later. Human Reproduction 18, 1115-1127.

· Scheib, J., Riordan, M. and Rubin, S. (2005) Adolescents with open-identity sperm donors: Reports from 12-17 year olds, Human Reproduction 20, 239-252.

· Schover, L. R., Rothmann, S. A., and Collins, R. L. (1992) The personality and motivation of semen donors: a comparison with oocyte donors. Human Reproduction 7, 575-579.

· Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology (9 March 2004).

· Snowden, R., Mitchell, G.D. and Snowden, E. M. (1983) Artificial reproduction: a social investigation. London: George Allen and Unwin.

· Söderström-Anttila, V. (1995) Follow-up study of Finnish volunteer oocyte donors concerning their attitudes to oocyte donation. Human Reproduction 10, 3073-3076.

· Söderström-Anttila, V., Foudila, T., Ripatti, U-R. and Siegberg, R. (1998) Embryo donation: outcome and attitudes among embryo donors and recipients. Human Reproduction 16, 1120-1128.

· Sorosky, A. D., Baran, A. and Pannor, R. (1984) The adoption triangle: sealed or open records: how they affect adoptees, birth parents and adoptive parents. New York: Anchor Press-Doubleday.

· Spencer, L. W. (2000) What is the Experience of Confronting the Reality of being a Donor Offspring? (unpublished MA thesis). Detroit: Center for Humanistic Studies.

· Stevens, B. (2001) Offspring (video). Toronto: Barna-Alper Productions.

· Triseliotis, J. (1973) In search of origins. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

· Turner, A. J. and Coyle, A. (2000) What does it mean to be a donor offspring? The identity experiences of adults conceived by donor insemination and the implications for counselling and therapy. Human Reproduction 15, 2041-2051.

· Waller, L. (1983) Report on Donor Gametes in IVF. Melbourne: Committee to Consider the Social, Ethical And Legal Issues Arising from In Vitro Fertilisation.

· Xytex Corporation (2000) Changing the Face of Donor Insemination. Augusta, GA: Xytex Corporation

Depositing User: Sara Taylor
Date Deposited: 04 Apr 2008 15:56
Last Modified: 05 Jan 2011 15:57
URI: http://eprints.hud.ac.uk/id/eprint/647

Item control for Repository Staff only:

View Item

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