Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF ) Freely available
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (17)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by McGee, G.
Right arrow Articles by Gurmankin, A. D.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by McGee, G.
Right arrow Articles by Gurmankin, A. D.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Human Reproduction, Vol. 16, No. 10, 2033-2036, October 2001
© 2001 European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology

Debates continued

Gamete donation and anonymity

Disclosure to children conceived with donor gametes should not be optional

Glenn McGee1,2,3,7, Sarah-Vaughan Brakman4,5 and Andrea D. Gurmankin1,6

1 Center for Bioethics, 2 Departments of Philosophy and History & Sociology of Science, 3 Leonard Davis Institute for Healthcare Economics, University of Pennsylvania, 4 Department of Philosophy, 5 Ethics Program, Villanova University and 6 Department of Psychology, University of Pennsylvania, PA, USA

The use of donor gametes in reproductive technology raises ethical, psychological and social questions that have been significant for the practice of adoption: that is, when, or if, to disclose biological origin to the child. The current wisdom is that adopted children should be told by their parents as early as possible that the family was created through adoption, and we argue that the same model should apply to the use of donor gametes. We argue that privacy concerns or other goals of parents who would prefer to avoid disclosure are outweighed by the negative consequences of holding such family secrets and by the child's right to, and medical need for, information about his/her origin. We believe fertility programmes and professional organizations ought to strongly encourage those using donor gametes to tell their child of their true origin as early as the child can understand reproduction in general.

Key words: adoption/disclosure/donor gametes/ethics/human

7 To whom correspondence should be addressed at: Center for Bioethics, University of Pennsylvania, 3401 Market St #320, Philadelphia, PA 19104-3308, USA. E-mail: mcgee{at}mail.med.upenn.edu


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Hum ReprodHome page
V. Jadva, T. Freeman, W. Kramer, and S. Golombok
The experiences of adolescents and adults conceived by sperm donation: comparisons by age of disclosure and family type
Hum. Reprod., August 1, 2009; 24(8): 1909 - 1919.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Hum ReprodHome page
F. MacCallum
Embryo donation parents' attitudes towards donors: comparison with adoption
Hum. Reprod., March 1, 2009; 24(3): 517 - 523.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Hum ReprodHome page
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]

Home page
 Hum ReprodHome page
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]

Home page
 Hum ReprodHome page
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]

Home page
 Hum ReprodHome page
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]

Home page
 Hum ReprodHome page
P. Patrizio, A. C. Mastroianni, and L. Mastroianni
Gamete donation and anonymity: Disclosure to children conceived with donor gametes should be optional
Hum. Reprod., October 1, 2001; 16(10): 2036 - 2038.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.