Skip header and navigation

5 records – page 1 of 1.

Access to donor insemination: Canadian ideals--UK law and practice.

https://arctichealth.org/en/permalink/ahliterature180664
Source
Med Law Int. 1999;4(1):23-38
Publication Type
Article
Date
1999
Author
E. Rennie
Author Affiliation
Medico-Legal Centre, Sheffield, UK.
Source
Med Law Int. 1999;4(1):23-38
Date
1999
Language
English
Publication Type
Article
Keywords
Canada
Child
Child Welfare
Family Characteristics
Great Britain
Health Services Accessibility - legislation & jurisprudence
Humans
Insemination, Artificial, Heterologous - legislation & jurisprudence
Posthumous Conception - legislation & jurisprudence
Social Values
Abstract
Reproductive technology has made a huge impact on society, exposing many long-standing, unresolved anomalies in our values and traditions. Access to medically assisted reproduction is particularly controversial, raising medical, legal and ethical issues. The 1980s saw increasing demands across several jurisdictions for clear legal rules, the hope being expressed in Canada that "the law may reflect the community's level of tolerance; but...also stretch or fashion it in the interests of a worthy goal." The Canadian Law Reform Commission recommended that, with regard to donor insemination, "protection for the traditional family should not be incorporated in legislation" and that "access should be limited only in terms of the cost and scarcity of resources", selection not being based on "family status, sexual orientation and so on". This paper attempts a comparative examination of UK legislation on reproductive technology in this light, with particular focus on the rationing of access to donor insemination.
PubMed ID
15072076 View in PubMed
Less detail

Disclosure behaviour and intentions among 111 couples following treatment with oocytes or sperm from identity-release donors: follow-up at offspring age 1-4 years.

https://arctichealth.org/en/permalink/ahliterature121973
Source
Hum Reprod. 2012 Oct;27(10):2998-3007
Publication Type
Article
Date
Oct-2012
Author
S. Isaksson
G. Sydsjö
A. Skoog Svanberg
C. Lampic
Author Affiliation
Department of Public Health and Caring Sciences, Uppsala University, S-751 22 Uppsala, Sweden.
Source
Hum Reprod. 2012 Oct;27(10):2998-3007
Date
Oct-2012
Language
English
Publication Type
Article
Keywords
Adult
Child, Preschool
Disclosure
Family Characteristics
Female
Follow-Up Studies
Heterosexuality
Humans
Infant
Insemination, Artificial, Heterologous - legislation & jurisprudence - psychology
Intention
Male
Oocyte Donation - legislation & jurisprudence - psychology
Sweden
Tissue Donors - legislation & jurisprudence
Tissue and Organ Procurement - legislation & jurisprudence
Abstract
Do heterosexual parents of young children following oocyte donation (OD) and sperm donation (SD) tell or intend to tell their offspring about the way he/she was conceived?
Following successful treatment with oocytes or sperm from identity-release donors in Sweden, almost all heterosexual couples intend to tell their offspring about the way he/she was conceived and some start the information-sharing process very early.
Although the Swedish legislation on identity-release gamete donors has been in effect since 1985, there is a discrepancy between the behaviour of donor-insemination parents and the legal intention that offspring be informed about their genetic origin. The present study contributes data on a relatively large sample of oocyte and sperm recipient couples' intended compliance with the Swedish legislation. DESIGN AND DATA COLLECTION METHOD: The present study constitutes a follow-up assessment of heterosexual couples who had given birth to a child following treatment with donated oocytes. Data collection was performed during 2007-2011; participants individually completed a questionnaire when the child was between 1 and 4 years of age.
The present study is part of the Swedish Study on Gamete Donation, a prospective longitudinal cohort study including all fertility clinics performing gamete donation in Sweden. For children conceived via OD, 107 individuals (including 52 couples and 3 individuals) agreed to participate (73% response). For children conceived via SD, the response rate was 70% (n = 122 individuals, including 59 couples and 4 individuals). Mean age of participants was 34 years (SD 4.4) and they reported a high level of education.
The majority of participants (78%) planned to tell the child about the donation, 16% had already started the information-sharing process and 6% planned not to tell their child about the donation or were undecided. Many were unsure about a suitable time to start the disclosure process and desired more information about strategies and tools for information sharing. Agreement on disclosure to offspring within the couple was related to the quality of the partner relationship. BIAS AND GENERALIZABILITY: There is a risk of selection bias, with gamete recipients preferring secrecy and non-disclosure declining study participation. The results may be regarded as partly generalizable to heterosexual couples with young children following treatment with gametes from legislatively mandated identity-release donors in an established donor programme.
Study funding by Merck Serono, The Swedish Research Council and The Family Planning Fund in Uppsala. No conflicts of interest to declare.
Notes
Cites: Fertil Steril. 2004 Mar;81(3):527-3115037397
Cites: J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs. 2002 May-Jun;31(3):283-9312033541
Cites: J Fam Psychol. 2004 Sep;18(3):443-5215382969
Cites: Soc Sci Med. 1995 May;40(9):1213-207610427
Cites: Hum Reprod. 2005 Jan;20(1):239-5215539443
Cites: Hum Reprod. 2005 Mar;20(3):820-415677679
Cites: Hum Reprod. 2005 Mar;20(3):810-915677680
Cites: Hum Reprod. 2005 Nov;20(11):3248-5616006458
Cites: Patient Educ Couns. 2005 Dec;59(3):252-6215990268
Cites: J Psychosom Obstet Gynaecol. 2005 Dec;26(4):265-7016457422
Cites: Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2006;85(1):78-8116521685
Cites: Sociol Health Illn. 2006 Apr;28(3):261-8316573716
Cites: Hum Fertil (Camb). 2006 Jun;9(2):93-916825110
Cites: Fertil Steril. 2007 Mar;87(3):524-3317141770
Cites: Hum Reprod. 2007 Jun;22(6):1759-6817522083
Cites: Hum Reprod. 2007 Sep;22(9):2566-7117588957
Cites: Fertil Steril. 2008 Jan;89(1):179-8717678901
Cites: J Fam Nurs. 2008 Feb;14(1):33-5518281642
Cites: Hum Reprod. 2009 May;24(5):1099-10519164306
Cites: Hum Reprod. 2009 Aug;24(8):1909-1919398766
Cites: J Assist Reprod Genet. 2009 May;26(5):231-819472047
Cites: Fertil Steril. 2010 May 1;93(7):2236-4619285663
Cites: Hum Reprod. 2010 Oct;25(10):2535-4220679252
Cites: Hum Reprod. 2010 Oct;25(10):2527-3420719810
Cites: Hum Reprod. 2011 Apr;26(4):853-6021212053
Cites: Hum Reprod. 2011 Sep;26(9):2415-2421708794
Cites: Hum Reprod. 2011 Oct;26(10):2783-9021803758
Cites: J Fam Psychol. 2012 Feb;26(1):1-1022040353
Cites: Hum Reprod. 2012 Mar;27(3):779-8622252089
Cites: Hum Reprod. 2000 Sep;15(9):2041-5110967012
Cites: Hum Reprod. 2000 Sep;15(9):2052-610967013
Cites: J Psychosom Obstet Gynaecol. 2000 Dec;21(4):193-20311191166
Cites: Hum Reprod. 2001 Sep;16(9):1792-611527877
Cites: Hum Reprod. 2002 May;17(5):1407-811980773
Cites: Fertil Steril. 2004 Jun;81(6):1565-7115193478
PubMed ID
22859508 View in PubMed
Less detail

[Does insemination with non-anonymous sperm donor have a future?]

https://arctichealth.org/en/permalink/ahliterature30146
Source
Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen. 2004 Sep 9;124(17):2263-5
Publication Type
Article
Date
Sep-9-2004
Author
Trine B Haugen
Tom Tanbo
Author Affiliation
Seksjon for barnløshet og assistert befruktning, Kvinneklinikken, Rikshospitalet, 0027 Oslo. t.b.haugen@rh.uio.no
Source
Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen. 2004 Sep 9;124(17):2263-5
Date
Sep-9-2004
Language
Norwegian
Publication Type
Article
Keywords
Access to Information - legislation & jurisprudence
Child
Child Advocacy - legislation & jurisprudence
Europe
Humans
Insemination, Artificial, Heterologous - legislation & jurisprudence - trends
Male
Norway
Tissue Donors - legislation & jurisprudence
PubMed ID
15356696 View in PubMed
Less detail

Semen providers and their three families.

https://arctichealth.org/en/permalink/ahliterature174265
Source
J Psychosom Obstet Gynaecol. 2005 Mar;26(1):15-22
Publication Type
Article
Date
Mar-2005
Author
K. Daniels
A. Lalos
C. Gottlieb
O. Lalos
Author Affiliation
Department of Social Work, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, UK.
Source
J Psychosom Obstet Gynaecol. 2005 Mar;26(1):15-22
Date
Mar-2005
Language
English
Publication Type
Article
Keywords
Adult
Attitude
Family
Humans
Insemination, Artificial, Heterologous - legislation & jurisprudence
Male
Middle Aged
Occupations
Questionnaires
Spermatozoa
Sweden
Tissue Donors - legislation & jurisprudence
Abstract
In 1985 the Swedish government introduced legislation that required all semen providers to furnish identifying information on themselves which would then be made available to their biological/provider offspring when they are deemed to have 'sufficient maturity'. The purpose of the legislation was to protect the child's rights and needs. The aim of this paper is to examine the degree to which semen providers have considered the implications of their decision to donate upon their three families; their birth family, the family they form with their partner, and the recipient family.
Thirty semen providers from two Swedish clinics were sent self-completion questionnaires collecting both quantitative and qualitative information. The initial response rate was 100%. Questions requested demographic information; the degree to which semen providers had consulted with or advised their partners, family, existing offspring and acquaintances about their semen donation; views and attitudes of semen providers towards donor offspring, anonymity, information sharing, payments to semen providers, community acceptance of DI and semen providers, experience of donation, recruitment/screening procedures.
Almost all respondents had told their partners that they were providing semen, however, a much smaller proportion had told their birth families. Almost two thirds of semen providers were positive or very positive about the prospect of meeting their offspring at some time in the future, with older men expressing more enthusiasm.
The findings suggest that semen providers have only partially considered and addressed the full implications of having semen provider offspring. The age of semen providers could be influential in determining some attitudes and views.
PubMed ID
15962718 View in PubMed
Less detail