Human Reproduction, Vol. 17, No. 11, 2995-3002,
November 2002
© 2002 European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology
Using attitudinal indicators to explain the public’s intention to have recourse to gamete donation and surrogacy
Department of Social Work, Technological Educational Institute (TEI) of Crete, Estavromenos 71500, Heraklion, Greece
BACKGROUND: Although the donation and receipt of gametes has become an integral part of infertility management, previous research in the field of social attitudes and intention to use medical technologies is limited. This study aimed to investigate attitudinal indicators and their potential relationship with the public’s intention to have recourse to gamete donation and surrogacy. METHODS: A total of 365 individuals of reproductive age (49.3% men and 50.7% women) completed a questionnaire referring to their intention to receive or donate sperm/oocytes and their acceptance of becoming a commissioning couple or surrogate mother, and also to explore their attitudes towards gamete donation and surrogacy. Two attitudinal indicators emerged from the principal component analysis identifying (i) recipients’ and donors’ choice for anonymity, donors’ renunciation of parental obligations and refusal of children’s rights to know their biological parents and (ii) favourable attitudes towards legislative and financial measures to be adopted by the Government for the promotion of reproductive technologies. RESULTS: It was found that the indicator of ‘Donors Anonymity and Refusal of Children’s Rights’ (DARCR) and the ‘Legislative and Financial Support’ (LFS) scale are positively associated with intention to have recourse to Gamete Donation and Surrogacy (GDS) (regression coefficients 0.31 and 1.08 respectively). Moreover, among the other variables used in the analysis only the ‘church attendance’ variable is negatively related with reported rates of intention to have recourse to GDS (P = 0.029), suggesting that the more religious respondents are less willing to use GDS. CONCLUSION: Social, legislative and financial implications provide a convenient rationale for adopting a favourable intention towards reproductive technologies. The findings of the present research should be given close consideration by policy makers and health education campaigns.
Key words: anonymity/assisted reproductive technologies/gamete/infertility/surrogacy
1 To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: jchlia{at}seyp.teiher.gr
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  S. Purewal and O.B.A. van den Akker Systematic review of oocyte donation: investigating attitudes, motivations and experiences Hum. Reprod. Update, September 1, 2009; 15(5): 499 - 515. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 N. Hudson, L. Culley, F. Rapport, M. Johnson, and A. Bharadwaj "Public" perceptions of gamete donation: a research review Public Understanding of Science, January 1, 2009; 18(1): 61 - 77. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 A.E. Poote and O.B.A van den Akker British women's attitudes to surrogacy Hum. Reprod., January 1, 2009; 24(1): 139 - 145. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. Papaharitou, E. Nakopoulou, M. Moraitou, K. Hatzimouratidis, and D. Hatzichristou Reproductive health and midwives: Does occupational status differentiate their attitudes on assisted reproduction technologies from those of the general population? Hum. Reprod., July 1, 2007; 22(7): 2033 - 2039. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
O. B.A. van den Akker Psychosocial aspects of surrogate motherhood Hum. Reprod. Update, January 1, 2007; 13(1): 53 - 62. [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]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. Isikoglu, Y. Senol, M. Berkkanoglu, K. Ozgur, L. Donmez, and A. Stones-Abbasi Public opinion regarding oocyte donation in Turkey: first data from a secular population among the Islamic world Hum. Reprod., January 1, 2006; 21(1): 318 - 323. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|