Hum. Reprod. Advance Access published online on December 8, 2005
Human Reproduction, doi:10.1093/humrep/dei407
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1 Hospital Rijnstate, Alysis zorggroep, Department of Clinical Chemistry/Semenbank, The Netherlands
* To whom correspondence should be addressed. In 2004 a law was introduced in The Netherlands, which gives offspring conceived by semen or oocyte donation the right to know the identity of the donor. The law also regulates the provision of other information concerning the donor to the offspring, their parents or their general practitioner. With the introduction of this law, a choice has been made in which the wish of offspring prevails above others involved. Donors can no longer claim absolute anonymity; they are anonymous at the time of donation, but if a child aged 316 years requests information the donor may now be traced. During 15 years of debate on the abolition of donor anonymity the number of donors decreased by >70% and the number of semen banks by 50%. We describe the debate which led to the law, the characteristics of the law itself and note some of the probable and possible consequences for donor offspring, parents, donors and semen banks.
Received July 1, 2005
Revised September 21, 2005
Accepted October 12, 2005
Opinion
A new Dutch Law regulating provision of identifying information of donors to offspring: background, content and impact
P.M.W. Janssens 1 *,
A.H.M. Simons 2,
R.J. van Kooij 3,
E. Blokzijl 4,
and
G.A.J. Dunselman 5
2 University Medical Centre Groningen, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Groningen, The Netherlands
3 Stichting Medisch Centrum voor Geboorteregeling, IVF-laboratory, Kort Rapenburg 1, Leiden, The Netherlands
4 Department of Gynaecology, Postbus 9555, 6800TA Arnhem, The Netherlands
5 Academic Hospital Maastricht, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Maastricht, The Netherlands
P.M.W. Janssens, E-mail: pjanssens{at}alysis.nl
![]()
Abstract ![]()
CiteULike
Connotea
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
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] |
||||
![]() |
B. C. Heng Independent counselling on embryo donation for infertility patients Hum. Reprod., August 1, 2007; 22(8): 2346 - 2348. [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
C. Wang, M.-Y. Tsai, M.-H. Lee, S.-Y. Huang, C.-H. Kao, H.-N. Ho, and C. K. Hsiao Maximum number of live births per donor in artificial insemination Hum. Reprod., May 1, 2007; 22(5): 1363 - 1372. [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] |
||||
![]() |
K. M. Godman, K. Sanders, M. Rosenberg, and P. Burton Potential sperm donors', recipients' and their partners' opinions towards the release of identifying information in Western Australia Hum. Reprod., November 1, 2006; 21(11): 3022 - 3026. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
A. P. Ferraretti, G. Pennings, L. Gianaroli, and M. C. Magli Semen donor recruitment in an oocyte donation programme Hum. Reprod., October 1, 2006; 21(10): 2482 - 2485. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||

