Skip Navigation


Hum. Reprod. Advance Access originally published online on January 27, 2005
Human Reproduction 2005 20(3):820-824; doi:10.1093/humrep/deh708
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF ) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
20/3/820    most recent
deh708v1
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 (16)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Brewaeys, A.
Right arrow Articles by Helmerhorst, F.M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Brewaeys, A.
Right arrow Articles by Helmerhorst, F.M.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Human Reproduction Vol. 20 No. 3 © The Author 2005; all rights reserved

Anonymous or identity-registered sperm donors? A study of Dutch recipients' choices

A. Brewaeys1, J.K. de Bruyn, L.A. Louwe and F.M. Helmerhorst

Department of Gynaecology and Reproductive Medicine, Leiden University Medical Center, Post Box 9600, 2300 RC Leiden, The Netherlands

1 To whom correspondence should be addressed. Email: a.m.a.brewaeys{at}lumc.nl

BACKGROUND: The aim of the present study was to gain insight into parents' own donor preferences within a system offering the choice between an anonymous and identity-registered donor. A comparison was made between recipients choosing for an anonymous donor (AD choosers) and those choosing for an identifiable donor (ID choosers) with regard to their sexual orientation, demographic characteristics, disclosure issues and infertility distress. METHODS: Data from 105 couples (61% heterosexual, 39% lesbian) were registered on a standardized form during implication counselling sessions previous to treatment. RESULTS: Sixty-three per cent of the heterosexual couples and 98% of the lesbian couples had chosen an ID donor. Major differences between ID and AD choosers were identified. Among the ID choosers secrecy towards the child was no option, whereas 83% of the AD choosers did not intend to inform their child. Compared with heterosexual ID choosers, AD choosers were more distressed about their infertility and had a lower educational level. CONCLUSION: Legislation imposing ID donors appears to be acceptable for the majority of this study population. For a vulnerable group of heterosexual couples, who remained secretive about the use of a donor, adaptation to the new system is not self-evident.

Key words: anonymity/disclosure/donor insemination/identity-registered/sperm donors


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
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]

Home page
 Hum ReprodHome page
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]

Home page
 Critical Social PolicyHome page
E. Blyth and L. Frith
The UK's gamete donor `crisis' - a critical analysis
Critical Social Policy, February 1, 2008; 28(1): 74 - 95.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Hum ReprodHome page
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]

Home page
 Hum ReprodHome page
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]

Home page
 Hum Reprod UpdateHome page
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]


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.