Human Reproduction, Vol 12, 2839-2844, Copyright © 1997 by Oxford University Press
G Pennings
Although there is no evidence that any one policy is the best solution,
clinics as well as legislators tend to impose one position about donor
anonymity on all participants. The most evident alternative policy is to
let the parties decide for themselves. Donors may choose between anonymity
or identification and recipients can opt for an anonymous or identifiable
donor. This 'double track' policy for anonymity represents the best attempt
to balance the rights of donors, recipients and donor offspring. The
procedure reflects the plurality of visions and the absence of an
independent standard to decide which one is best.
REVIEWS
The 'double track' policy for donor anonymity
Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Vakgroep Filosofie, Belgium.
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  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]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 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]
|
|
|
|
|
|
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]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. Brewaeys, J.K. de Bruyn, L.A. Louwe, and F.M. Helmerhorst Anonymous or identity-registered sperm donors? A study of Dutch recipients' choices Hum. Reprod., March 1, 2005; 20(3): 820 - 824. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
K. Vanfraussen, I. Ponjaert-Kristoffersen, and A. Brewaeys An attempt to reconstruct children's donor concept: a comparison between children's and lesbian parents' attitudes towards donor anonymity Hum. Reprod., September 1, 2001; 16(9): 2019 - 2025. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. McWhinnie Gamete donation and anonymity: Should offspring from donated gametes continue to be denied knowledge of their origins and antecedents? Hum. Reprod., May 1, 2001; 16(5): 807 - 817. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
L. Frith Gamete donation and anonymity: The ethical and legal debate Hum. Reprod., May 1, 2001; 16(5): 818 - 824. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
G. Pennings What are the ownership rights for gametes and embryos?: Advance directives and the disposition of cryopreserved gametes and embryos Hum. Reprod., May 1, 2000; 15(5): 979 - 986. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
G. Pennings The right to choose your donor: a step towards commercialization or a step towards empowering the patient? Hum. Reprod., March 1, 2000; 15(3): 508 - 514. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
G. Fuscaldo Gamete donation: when does consent become irrevocable? Hum. Reprod., March 1, 2000; 15(3): 515 - 519. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
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]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. Rumball and V. Adair Telling the story: parents' scripts for donor offspring* Hum. Reprod., May 1, 1999; 14(5): 1392 - 1399. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|