4.7 Article

The views of adult offspring of sperm donation: essential feedback for the development of ethical guidelines within the practice of assisted reproductive technology in the United States

期刊

FERTILITY AND STERILITY
卷 93, 期 7, 页码 2236-2246

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2008.12.119

关键词

Donor insemination; disclosure; adult donor offspring; identity-release gamete donation; parent education; donor anonymity; secrecy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To provide an in-depth analysis of offspring attitudes toward their means of conception and the practice of sperm donation in the United States. Design: Survey-based study using a 46-item questionnaire. Patient(s): Eighty-five adult offspring of sperm donation. Intervention(s): Participants were recruited through an Internet-based support group for adults conceived through sperm donation. Eighty-five of them completed the questionnaire provided through a link to another Internet site. Main Outcome Measure(s): Responses to a 46-item questionnaire. Result(s): A majority of offspring learned of their conception at age > 18 years during a planned conversation; had no information about their donor; viewed their donor as their biological father''; had searched for and wanted identifying information on their donor and half-siblings; and supported the provision of extensive nonidentifying information or identity release in the practice of sperm donation. Participant attitudes toward their means of conception were evenly distributed from very good'' to very bad.'' Other descriptive information on participants contributed to an understanding of their attitudes. Conclusion(s): Participant ratings of their conception were evenly distributed from very good'' to very bad.'' Most believed that identifying information should be provided to recipients and that they themselves would not participate in the practice of gamete donation. (Fertil Steril (R) 2010;93:2236-46. (C) 2010 by American Society for Reproductive Medicine.)

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据