Human Reproduction, Vol. 15, No. 9, 2052-2056,
September 2000
© 2000 European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology
Disclosure of donor insemination to the child: the impact of Swedish legislation on couples' attitudes
1 IVF unit, Sophiahemmet Hospital and Division of Women and Child Health, Karolinska Hospital, Stockholm, 2 Department of Obst/Gyn, University Hospital, Umeå and 3 Division of Psychosocial Factors and Health and Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry at Huddinge University Hospital, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
The question whether or not parents of children conceived after donor insemination (DI) tell their offspring about its biological background was addressed. Swedish legislation from 1985 gives the child born after DI the right, when grown up, to receive identifying information about the sperm donor. Until now no information about compliance with the law has been available. All parents who gave birth to a child by DI after the new legislation in two major Swedish fertility centres (Stockholm and Umeå) received a questionnaire containing questions about the issue of informing the child. The response rate was 80%. The majority of parents (89%) had not informed their children, whereas 59% had told someone else. As a response to an open question, 105/132 parents chose to comment on their answer about not having informed their child. Of these families, 61 intended to tell their child later, 16 were not sure and 28 were not going to inform the child. Compliance with the law must be regarded as low since only 52% of the parents had told or intended to tell their child. In addition, concern is raised about the children who run the risk of being informed by someone other than their parents.
Key words: donor insemination/donor insemination children/donor insemination parents/infertility/openness
4 To whom correspondence should be addressed at: IVF unit, Sophiahemmet Hospital, Box 5605, S114 86 Stockholm, Sweden. E-mail: claes.gottlieb{at}kbh.ki.se
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  V. Jadva, T. Freeman, W. Kramer, and S. Golombok The experiences of adolescents and adults conceived by sperm donation: comparisons by age of disclosure and family type Hum. Reprod., August 1, 2009; 24(8): 1909 - 1919. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
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]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 J Burr and P Reynolds Thinking ethically about genetic inheritance: liberal rights, communitarianism and the right to privacy for parents of donor insemination children J. Med. Ethics, April 1, 2008; 34(4): 281 - 284. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. S. Svanberg, G. Sydsjo, K. E. Selling, and C. Lampic Attitudes towards gamete donation among Swedish gynaecologists and obstetricians Hum. Reprod., April 1, 2008; 23(4): 904 - 911. [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]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. Kirkman, D. Rosenthal, and L. Johnson Families working it out: adolescents' views on communicating about donor-assisted conception Hum. Reprod., August 1, 2007; 22(8): 2318 - 2324. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. Lalos, C. Gottlieb, and O. Lalos Legislated right for donor-insemination children to know their genetic origin: a study of parental thinking Hum. Reprod., June 1, 2007; 22(6): 1759 - 1768. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. Legge, R. Fitzgerald, and N. Frank A retrospective study of New Zealand case law involving assisted reproduction technology and the social recognition of 'new' family Hum. Reprod., January 1, 2007; 22(1): 17 - 25. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
P.M.W. Janssens, A.H.M. Simons, R.J. van Kooij, E. Blokzijl, and G.A.J. Dunselman A new Dutch Law regulating provision of identifying information of donors to offspring: background, content and impact Hum. Reprod., April 1, 2006; 21(4): 852 - 856. [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]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 L. R. Schover Motivation for Parenthood After Cancer: A Review J Natl Cancer Inst Monographs, March 1, 2005; 2005(34): 2 - 5. [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]
|
|
|
|
|
|
E. Lycett, K. Daniels, R. Curson, and S. Golombok School-aged children of donor insemination: a study of parents' disclosure patterns Hum. Reprod., March 1, 2005; 20(3): 810 - 819. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. Golombok, V. Jadva, E. Lycett, C. Murray, and F. MacCallum Families created by gamete donation: follow-up at age 2 Hum. Reprod., January 1, 2005; 20(1): 286 - 293. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S.C. Klock and D.A. Greenfeld Parents' knowledge about the donors and their attitudes toward disclosure in oocyte donation Hum. Reprod., July 1, 2004; 19(7): 1575 - 1579. [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]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J.E. Scheib, M. Riordan, and S. Rubin Choosing identity-release sperm donors: the parents' perspective 13-18 years later Hum. Reprod., May 1, 2003; 18(5): 1115 - 1127. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
P. M.W. Janssens No reason for a reduction in the number of offspring per sperm donor because of possible transmission of autosomal dominant diseases Hum. Reprod., April 1, 2003; 18(4): 669 - 671. [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]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. E. Chliaoutakis, S. Koukouli, and M. Papadakaki Using attitudinal indicators to explain the public's intention to have recourse to gamete donation and surrogacy Hum. Reprod., November 1, 2002; 17(11): 2995 - 3002. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
V. English, G. Romano-Critchley, J. Sheather, and A. Somerville Ethics briefings J. Med. Ethics, April 1, 2002; 28(2): 127 - 128. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
P. Patrizio, A. C. Mastroianni, and L. Mastroianni Gamete donation and anonymity: Disclosure to children conceived with donor gametes should be optional Hum. Reprod., October 1, 2001; 16(10): 2036 - 2038. [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]
|
|
|
|
|
|
V. Soderstrom-Anttila, T. Foudila, U.-R. Ripatti, and R. Siegberg Embryo donation: outcome and attitudes among embryo donors and recipients Hum. Reprod., June 1, 2001; 16(6): 1120 - 1128. [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]
|
|