Hum. Reprod. Advance Access originally published online on July 18, 2006
Human Reproduction 2006 21(11):3022-3026; doi:10.1093/humrep/del274
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Potential sperm donors’, recipients’ and their partners’ opinions towards the release of identifying information in Western Australia
1 School of Anatomy and Human Biology and 2 School of Population Health, The University of Western Australia, Nedlands and 3 Concept Fertility Centre, King Edward Memorial Hospital, Subiaco, Western Australia, Australia
4 To whom correspondence should be addressed at: Concept Fertility Centre, King Edward Memorial Hospital, 374 Bagot Road, Subiaco, Western Australia 6008, Australia. E-mail: pete{at}conceptfert.com.au
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to examine Western Australian potential sperm donors’ and recipients’ opinions towards the release of identifying information and their intentions to disclose. METHODS: Forty-five potential sperm donors, 33 recipients and 12 partners completed an anonymous questionnaire regarding their opinions on the release of identifying information, whether a child should be told about the manner of their conception, the level of expected contact of donor with future donor offspring and the importance of anonymity in their decision to donate. RESULTS: Slightly less than one-half (48.9%) of potential donors indicated that they would still donate if their identity was revealed to future offspring. When asked whether they would consider contact with offspring, 80% responded positively, with 42% favouring one-off contact. The majority of recipients (82%) and partners (92%) were planning to inform their offspring about the manner of their conception, with 69% of recipients believing that the offspring should receive identifying information about the donor. Recipients were ambivalent about the level of contact between their offspring and the donor. CONCLUSION: These results suggest that the move to an open-identity donor system in Western Australia will benefit the majority of recipient parents who are intending to disclose; however, it also suggests a 50% decline in the number of potential sperm donors.
Key words: anonymity/disclosure/recipient/recruitment/sperm donors
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  D. W. Riggs The Health and Well-being Implications of Emotion Work Undertaken by Gay Sperm Donors Feminism Psychology, November 1, 2009; 19(4): 517 - 533. [Abstract] [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]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 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]
|
|