Skip Navigation


Hum. Reprod. Advance Access originally published online on May 6, 2004
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF ) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
19/7/1575    most recent
deh289v1
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 ISI Web of Science
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 (6)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Klock, S.C.
Right arrow Articles by Greenfeld, D.A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Klock, S.C.
Right arrow Articles by Greenfeld, D.A.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Human Reproduction, Vol. 19, No. 7, 1575-1579, July 2004
© 2004 European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology

Parents’ knowledge about the donors and their attitudes toward disclosure in oocyte donation

S.C. Klock1,3 and D.A. Greenfeld2

1 Departments of Obstetrics and Gynecology, and Psychiatry, Northwestern University Medical School, Chicago, IL 60611 and 2 Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Yale University Medical School, New Haven, CT 06520, USA

3 To whom correspondence should be addressed. e-mail: sck318{at}northwestern.edu

BACKGROUND: Oocyte donation is a popular treatment option among women with ovarian dysfunction. Little is known about the amount of information recipients have about their donors and if the amount of information the couple has relates to their plans to disclose. The purpose of this study was to assess the amount of information recipients had about their donors and their disclosure plans. METHODS: Sixty-two sets of oocyte donation parents from five programmes completed a self-report questionnaire. RESULTS: Ninety percent of both men and women knew their donor’s age, ethnicity, hair colour, eye colour, height, weight, education and medical history. Significantly more women than men told others about using a donor to conceive, but two-thirds of women and men would not tell others if they had to do it over again. Fifty-nine percent of women and 52% of men planned to or had told their child; 34% of women and 41% of men do not plan to tell. The amount of information known about the donor was related to plans to tell the child for men only. CONCLUSION: Approximately half of couples plan to tell their child of their oocyte donor origin and a majority have told others but many regret having done so. Knowledge about the donor is related to disclosure for men only.

Key words: disclosure/oocyte donation/parenting/psychological factors


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
F. MacCallum
Embryo donation parents' attitudes towards donors: comparison with adoption
Hum. Reprod., March 1, 2009; 24(3): 517 - 523.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Public Understanding of ScienceHome page
N. Hudson, L. Culley, F. Rapport, M. Johnson, and A. Bharadwaj
"Public" perceptions of gamete donation: a research review
Public Understanding of Science, January 1, 2009; 18(1): 61 - 77.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Hum ReprodHome page
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]


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]



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.