Human Reproduction, Vol. 18, No. 5, 1115-1127,
May 2003
© 2003 European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology
Choosing identity-release sperm donors: the parents’ perspective 13–18 years later
1 Department of Psychology, University of California, Davis, CA 95616, 2 The Sperm Bank of California, Berkeley, CA 94704 and 3 The Ethics Practice, Berkeley, CA 94705, USA
4 To whom correspondence should be addressed. e-mail: jescheib{at}ucdavis.edu
BACKGROUND: A growing number of donor insemination (DI) programmes offer ‘open-identity’ sperm donors, who are willing to have their identity released to adult offspring. We report findings from parents who chose such donors and whose children are now adolescents. METHODS: Using mail-back questionnaires, parents from 45 households (40% headed by lesbian couples, 38% by single women, 22% by heterosexual couples) reported their experience with using an open-identity donor and disclosure about it, as well as their child’s plans for donor identity-releasesm. RESULTS: Almost no parents regretted using an open-identity donor. Almost all parents had told their child about his or her DI conception early on and reported a neutral to moderately positive impact. Finally, of those who had told, almost all expected their child to obtain the donor’s identity. We also discuss differences found between birth mothers and co-parents and among single women, lesbian couples, and heterosexual couples. CONCLUSIONS: Families were relatively open and positive about their use of DI and that their child could obtain the donor’s identity. Disclosure did not appear to have a negative impact on the families, regardless of parental sexual orientation and relationship status.
Key words: adolescence/disclosure/donor insemination/open-identity sperm donor/parenting
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  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]
|
|
|
|
|
|
K. Daniels, W. Gillett, and V. Grace Parental information sharing with donor insemination conceived offspring: a follow-up study Hum. Reprod., May 1, 2009; 24(5): 1099 - 1105. [Abstract] [Full Text] [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]
|
|
|
|
|
|
P. Thorn, T. Katzorke, and K. Daniels Semen donors in Germany: A study exploring motivations and attitudes Hum. Reprod., November 1, 2008; 23(11): 2415 - 2420. [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]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. S. Paul and R. Berger Topic avoidance and family functioning in families conceived with donor insemination Hum. Reprod., September 1, 2007; 22(9): 2566 - 2571. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. Lalos, C. Gottlieb, and O. Lalos Legislated right for donor-insemination children to know their genetic origin: a study of parental thinking Hum. Reprod., June 1, 2007; 22(6): 1759 - 1768. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
K. M. Godman, K. Sanders, M. Rosenberg, and P. Burton Potential sperm donors', recipients' and their partners' opinions towards the release of identifying information in Western Australia Hum. Reprod., November 1, 2006; 21(11): 3022 - 3026. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
P.M.W. Janssens, A.H.M. Simons, R.J. van Kooij, E. Blokzijl, and G.A.J. Dunselman A new Dutch Law regulating provision of identifying information of donors to offspring: background, content and impact Hum. Reprod., April 1, 2006; 21(4): 852 - 856. [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]
|
|
|
|
|
|
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]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. Golombok, V. Jadva, E. Lycett, C. Murray, and F. MacCallum Families created by gamete donation: follow-up at age 2 Hum. Reprod., January 1, 2005; 20(1): 286 - 293. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J.E. Scheib, M. Riordan, and S. Rubin Adolescents with open-identity sperm donors: reports from 12-17 year olds Hum. Reprod., January 1, 2005; 20(1): 239 - 252. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S.C. Klock and D.A. Greenfeld Parents' knowledge about the donors and their attitudes toward disclosure in oocyte donation Hum. Reprod., July 1, 2004; 19(7): 1575 - 1579. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|