Human Reproduction, Vol. 15, No. 2, 476-484,
February 2000
© 2000 European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology
Counselling couples and donors for oocyte donation: the decision to use either known or anonymous oocytes
1 Centre for Reproductive Medicine, University Hospital, Free University of Brussels, Laarbeeklaan 101, B-1090 Brussels and 2 Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, Free University of Brussels, Pleinlaan 2, B-1050 Brussels, Belgium
In order to avoid a long waiting period, the Centre for Reproductive Medicine of the Free University of Brussels suggests that couples in need of donor oocytes search for a donor among family and friends. Recipient couples can choose between two types of donation: known donation, i.e. treatment with the oocytes of the donor recruited by the couple, or anonymous donation, i.e. an exchange of the donor recruited by the couple with a donor recruited by another couple in order to ensure anonymity between donor and recipients. In total, 144 couples were counselled by a psychologist in the decision-making process with regard to the kind of donation to be used. Some 68.8% of the recipient couples preferred known donation. This choice was mainly motivated by reasons related to fears associated with anonymity, such as fear of the unknown origin of genetic material and the trust that couples had in `their' donor. Almost one-third of the couples opted to use anonymous oocytes. The desire to establish explicit boundaries between the two families involved was the major motivation for this choice. Approximately 44% of the couples were willing to tell the child about the oocyte donation.
Key words: counselling/oocyte donation/secrecy
3 To whom correspondence should be addressed
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  S. Purewal and O.B.A van den Akker A study of the effect of message framing on oocyte donation Hum. Reprod., October 3, 2009; (2009) dep342v1. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 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]
|
|
|
|
|
|
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]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. Yee, J. A. Hitkari, and E. M. Greenblatt A follow-up study of women who donated oocytes to known recipient couples for altruistic reasons Hum. Reprod., July 1, 2007; 22(7): 2040 - 2050. [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]
|
|
|
|
|
|
G. Pennings Gamete donation in a system of need-adjusted reciprocity Hum. Reprod., November 1, 2005; 20(11): 2990 - 2993. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. Boggio Italy enacts new law on medically assisted reproduction Hum. Reprod., May 1, 2005; 20(5): 1153 - 1157. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
E. Blyth and A. Farrand Reproductive tourism - a price worth paying for reproductive autonomy? Critical Social Policy, February 1, 2005; 25(1): 91 - 114. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
G. Pennings Legal harmonization and reproductive tourism in Europe Hum. Reprod., December 1, 2004; 19(12): 2689 - 2694. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. S. Svanberg, C. Lampic, T. Bergh, and O. Lundkvist Characterization of potential oocyte donors in Sweden Hum. Reprod., October 1, 2003; 18(10): 2205 - 2215. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
N. Nikolettos, B. Asimakopoulos, and I. Hatzissabas Intrafamilial sperm donation: ethical questions and concerns Hum. Reprod., May 1, 2003; 18(5): 933 - 936. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
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]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 G Pennings Reproductive tourism as moral pluralism in motion J. Med. Ethics, December 1, 2002; 28(6): 337 - 341. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|