Human Reproduction, Vol 12, 1591-1597, Copyright © 1997 by Oxford University Press
A Brewaeys, S Golombok, N Naaktgeboren, JK de Bruyn and EV van Hall
Results from a comparative study investigating 38 donor insemination (DI)
Dutch families with 4-8 year old children are presented. The aims of this
study were to investigate parents' opinions on the issues of
confidentiality and donor anonymity, to assess the emotional development of
the children, and to examine in DI families the association between secrecy
with regard to the use of a donor and the emotional adjustment of the
children. The DI families were compared to families with a child conceived
by in-vitro fertilization (IVF) and to families with a naturally conceived
child. Secrecy appeared to be associated with DI and not with IVF: 74% of
the DI parents intended not to inform the child about the way in which
she/he was conceived, whereas none of the IVF parents intended to keep the
secret. Only one set of DI parents and two sets of IVF parents had actually
told the child. As to donor anonymity, a spread of opinions appeared among
DI parents; 57% preferred an anonymous donor, 31% would have liked non-
identifying information about the donor, 9% preferred the donor's identity
to be registered and 3% remained unsure. Parents' major concern was to know
more about the medical/genetic background of the donor. Mothers and fathers
in the DI families differed in their opinions concerning the issues of
confidentiality and donor anonymity: fathers, more often than mothers, were
secretive with regard to the use of a donor and husbands, more often than
their wives, were in favour of donor anonymity. With regard to the
emotional development of the children, more emotional/behavioural problems
were revealed among DI children than among children who were naturally
conceived. No association was found between secrecy and the
emotional/behavioural adjustment of the children.
ARTICLES
Donor insemination: Dutch parents' opinions about confidentiality and donor anonymity and the emotional adjustment of their children
Department of Obstetrics, Gynaecology and Reproductive Medicine, University Hospital Leiden, The Netherlands.
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  V. Soderstrom-Anttila, M. Salevaara, and A. M. Suikkari Increasing openness in oocyte donation families regarding disclosure over 15 years Hum. Reprod., August 2, 2010; (2010) deq194v1. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 K. H. Shelton, J. Boivin, D. Hay, M. B.M. van den Bree, F. J. Rice, G. T. Harold, and A. Thapar Examining differences in psychological adjustment problems among children conceived by assisted reproductive technologies International Journal of Behavioral Development, September 1, 2009; 33(5): 385 - 392. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
F. MacCallum Embryo donation parents' attitudes towards donors: comparison with adoption Hum. Reprod., March 1, 2009; 24(3): 517 - 523. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
T. Freeman, V. Jadva, W. Kramer, and S. Golombok Gamete donation: parents' experiences of searching for their child's donor siblings and donor Hum. Reprod., March 1, 2009; 24(3): 505 - 516. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 J Burr and P Reynolds Thinking ethically about genetic inheritance: liberal rights, communitarianism and the right to privacy for parents of donor insemination children J. Med. Ethics, April 1, 2008; 34(4): 281 - 284. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
F. MacCallum and S. Golombok Embryo donation families: mothers' decisions regarding disclosure of donor conception Hum. Reprod., November 1, 2007; 22(11): 2888 - 2895. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 O. van den Akker A review of family donor constructs: Current research and future directions Hum. Reprod. Update, March 1, 2006; 12(2): 91 - 101. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 L J Fisher-Jeffes, I Banerjee, and A G Sutcliffe Parents' concerns regarding their ART children Reproduction, February 1, 2006; 131(2): 389 - 394. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
C. Murray and S. Golombok Solo mothers and their donor insemination infants: follow-up at age 2 years Hum. Reprod., June 1, 2005; 20(6): 1655 - 1660. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
E. Lycett, K. Daniels, R. Curson, and S. Golombok School-aged children of donor insemination: a study of parents' disclosure patterns Hum. Reprod., March 1, 2005; 20(3): 810 - 819. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. S. Svanberg, C. Lampic, T. Bergh, and O. Lundkvist Characterization of potential oocyte donors in Sweden Hum. Reprod., October 1, 2003; 18(10): 2205 - 2215. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
N. Nikolettos, B. Asimakopoulos, and I. Hatzissabas Intrafamilial sperm donation: ethical questions and concerns Hum. Reprod., May 1, 2003; 18(5): 933 - 936. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 J. E. Frances-Fischer and O. R. Lightsey Jr. Parenthood After Primary Infertility The Family Journal, April 1, 2003; 11(2): 117 - 128. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. E. Chliaoutakis, S. Koukouli, and M. Papadakaki Using attitudinal indicators to explain the public's intention to have recourse to gamete donation and surrogacy Hum. Reprod., November 1, 2002; 17(11): 2995 - 3002. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
H. Colpin and S. Soenen Parenting and psychosocial development of IVF children: a follow-up study Hum. Reprod., April 1, 2002; 17(4): 1116 - 1123. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
L. Frith Gamete donation and anonymity: The ethical and legal debate Hum. Reprod., May 1, 2001; 16(5): 818 - 824. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
C. Gottlieb, O. Lalos, and F. Lindblad Disclosure of donor insemination to the child: the impact of Swedish legislation on couples' attitudes Hum. Reprod., September 1, 2000; 15(9): 2052 - 2056. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. Rumball and V. Adair Telling the story: parents' scripts for donor offspring* Hum. Reprod., May 1, 1999; 14(5): 1392 - 1399. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|