4.6 Article

Donor information considered important to donors, recipients and offspring: an Australian perspective

Journal

REPRODUCTIVE BIOMEDICINE ONLINE
Volume 22, Issue 3, Pages 303-311

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2010.11.007

Keywords

donors; donor-conceived offspring; gamete and embryo donation; recipients; release of information

Funding

  1. Donor Conception Support Group

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Donor conception research supports open-identity donor programmes and disclosure to donor-conceived offspring. This study examines Australian donors', recipients' and donor-conceived offspring's views on the importance of different types of biographical information about the donor. Participants (125 recipients, 39 donors (known, identity-release and anonymous), 23 donor-conceived offspring) completed an online or paper self-administered anonymous questionnaire. Individuals rated the importance of 15 types of biographical information and subsequently chose the three they deemed most important. All groups included donor's health history and name as key variables to be available to donor-conceived offspring. Recipients viewed the donor's decision to donate as important, donors thought their feelings about being contacted were important and donor-conceived offspring expressed an interest in the donor's own family. Sperm donors were less inclined to view the provision of information as important compared with offspring. For recipients, the importance of information became apparent once they had disclosed to their children. This is the first study to gauge Australian stakeholders' attitudes to release of information in the donor conception process. The findings support the move to open-identity donation systems and emphasize the importance of considering the varying perspectives of all stakeholders by policy developers. (C) 2010, Reproductive Healthcare Ltd. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available