Human Reproduction Update Advance Access originally published online on September 19, 2005
Human Reproduction Update 2006 12(2):91-101; doi:10.1093/humupd/dmi038
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
A review of family donor constructs: Current research and future directions
School of Life and Health Sciences, Aston University, Aston Triangle, Birmingham, UK
To whom correspondence should be addressed at: School of Life and Health Sciences, Aston University, Aston Triangle, Birmingham B4 7ET, UK. E-mail: o.vandenakker{at}aston.ac.uk
Submitted on October 21, 2004; resubmitted on May 13, 2005; accepted on August 9, 2005
This review addresses research on gamete donors, recipients, and offspring and demonstrates that the foci on all three within the triad are largely directed at disclosure or anonymity; and each in turn centers on the perceived importance of the genetic link. The importance attached to genetics has led some countries to review the ethics of anonymous gamete donation (e.g. New Zealand’s ‘open system’ of information sharing) and has led other countries (Sweden, Austria, Victoria, Australia; the Netherlands, the UK) to change their laws allowing donor gamete offspring the right to obtain identifying information about their genetic parent. This review demonstrates that genealogical inconsistencies between and within members of the triad are common regardless of legislation. A discussion of future trends and concerns, relating to the use of gamete donation and the effects legislation is likely to have on the donor triads in the UK following 2005, is provided. The review also addresses the importance of testing theoretical models within future research, and argues this would lead to a better understanding of the underlying problems encountered at a psychosocial level, such as continued preference for anonymity in donors and denial in large numbers of users of the involvement of a donor in conception. Lack of disclosure effectively prevents true implementation of legislation; if a child is not informed, it is the result of donated gametes, it cannot take up the legally available option of finding out identifiable information about their genetic parent(s).
Key words: donors / gametes / genealogy / offspring / recipients
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 Systematic review of oocyte donation: investigating attitudes, motivations and experiences Hum. Reprod. Update, September 1, 2009; 15(5): 499 - 515. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 B. C. Heng Stringent regulation of oocyte donation in China Hum. Reprod., January 1, 2009; 24(1): 14 - 16. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A.E. Poote and O.B.A van den Akker British women's attitudes to surrogacy Hum. Reprod., January 1, 2009; 24(1): 139 - 145. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 I. turkmendag, R. Dingwall, and T. Murphy The Removal Of Donor Anonymity in The UK: The Silencing Of Claims By Would-Be Parents Int J Law Policy Family, December 1, 2008; 22(3): 283 - 310. [Abstract] [Full Text] [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]
|
|
|
|
|
|
O. B.A. van den Akker Psychosocial aspects of surrogate motherhood Hum. Reprod. Update, January 1, 2007; 13(1): 53 - 62. [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]
|
|