Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF )
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 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 (21)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Weil, E.
Right arrow Articles by Salat-Baroux, J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Weil, E.
Right arrow Articles by Salat-Baroux, J.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Human Reproduction, Vol. 9, No. 7, pp. 1344-1347, 1994
© 1994 European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology

research-article

Psychology: Psychological aspects in anonymous and non-anonymous oocyte donation

E. Weil1, D. Cornet, C. Sibony, J. Mandelbaum and J. Salat-Baroux

Hôpital Necker 149 Rue de Sèvres 75743 Paris Cedex 15, France

Correspondence: 1To whom correspondence should be addressed

A study, in which 110 patients were screened by a psychoanalyst, included 69 recipients who chose non-anonymous oocyte donation, i.e. they received oocytes from a known donor, most frequently a sister or a close relative. Another 41 recipients received anonymous oocytes, but had to bring a donor. Psychological motivations for either choice are reported, and significant topics such as attitudes towards confidentiality and links to the child are compared. No specific psychopathology is reported at this stage. An additional study on children born by these techniques is ongoing.

Key words: oocyte donation/psychological aspects


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
S. Purewal and O.B.A van den Akker
A study of the effect of message framing on oocyte donation
Hum. Reprod., December 1, 2009; 24(12): 3136 - 3143.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Hum Reprod UpdateHome page
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]

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]

Home page
 Hum ReprodHome page
A.S. Svanberg, C. Lampic, T. Bergh, and O. Lundkvist
Public opinion regarding oocyte donation in Sweden
Hum. Reprod., May 1, 2003; 18(5): 1107 - 1114.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Hum ReprodHome page
P. Baetens, P. Devroey, M. Camus, A.C. Van Steirteghem, and I. Ponjaert-Kristoffersen
Counselling couples and donors for oocyte donation: the decision to use either known or anonymous oocytes
Hum. Reprod., February 1, 2000; 15(2): 476 - 484.
[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.