Current trends in gamete donation – psychosocial and ethical issues
Authors:
T. Rumpíková 1; I. Oborná 2; H. Konečná 3
Authors‘ workplace:
Klinika reprodukční medicíny a gynekologie, Zlín, vedoucí lékař MUDr. D. Rumpík
1; Porodnicko-gynekologická klinika LF UP a FN, Olomouc, přednosta prof. MUDr. R. Pilka, Ph. D.
2; Zdravotně sociální fakulta, Jihočeská univerzita, České Budějovice
3
Published in:
Ceska Gynekol 2017; 82(4): 293-299
Overview
Objective:
To overview contemporary knowledge of legal and psychosocial rules in gamete donation. Previously, anonymous donation was preferred and recommended by experts but currently, with respect to the right to know the genetic origin of individuals, the relation to donor anonymity was reconsidered in many countries. There is a growing tendency to introduce the open identity system in gamete donation. Such system may guarantee that the child born after gamete donation may have receive the identification data of the donor of gametes.
Design:
A review.
Setting:
Clinic of Reproductive Medicine and Gynecology Zlin.
Methods:
An overview of recent literature evaluating the influence of donor anonymity vs. open identity on psychosocial development of children born after gamete donation as well as on the quality of the relationship between parents and children in such families.
Conclusion:
New medical technologies usually overtake the developmental speed of ethics and psychology, and their impact on human society. Current trend to open identity is strong but there is no clear evidence that the open identity is of real importance for the healthy psychosocial development of a child born after gamete donation. Furthermore, there is no evidence that anonymity and secrecy of the gamete donation is harmful. In case of the consideration of the change in legal regulation in anonymity/open identity in gamete donation we would suggest the thorough consideration of all consequences.
Keywords:
anonymity, open identity, gamete donation, child development
Sources
1. Appleby, J., Blake, L., Freeman, T. Is disclosure in the best interests of children conceived by donation? In: Richards, M., Pennings, G., Appleby, JB., eds. Reproductive Donation: Practice, Policy and Bioethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2012, p. 231–249.
2. Applegarth, LD., Kaufman, NL., Josephs-Sohan, M., et al. Parental disclosure to offspring created with oocyte donation: intentions versus reality. Hum Reprod, 2016, 31(8), p. 1809–1815.
3. Barton, M., Walker, K., Weisner, BP. Artificial insemination. BritMed Jl, 1945, 1(4384), p. 40–43.
4. Baetens, P., Devroey, P., Camus, M., et al. Counselling couples and donors for oocyte donation: the decision to use either known or anonymous oocytes. Hum Reprod, 2000, 15(2), p. 476–484.
5. Bertrand-Servais, M., Letur-Könirsch, H., Raoul-Duval, A., Frydman, R. Psychological considerations of anonymous donation. Hum Reprod, 1993, 8(6), p. 874–879.
6. Blake, L., Jadva, V., Golombok, S. Parent psychological adjustment, donor conception and disclosure: a follow-up over 10 years. Hum Reprod, 2014, 29(11), p. 2487–2496.
7. Blyth, E. How it feels to be a child of donor insemination. BMJ, 2002, 234, p. 797.
8. Blyth, E., Frith, L. Donor-conceived people‘s access to genetic and biographical history: an analysis of provisions in different jurisdictions permitting disclosure of donor identity. Int J Law Policy Family, 2009, 23(2), p. 174–191.
9. Bowlby, J. Vazba. 1. vyd. Praha: Portál. 2010, s. 360.
10. Bracewell-Milnes, T., Saso, S., Bora, S., et al. Investigating psychosocial attitudes, motivations and experiences of oocyte donors, recipients and egg sharers: a systematic review. Hum Reprod Update, 2016, 22(4), p. 450–465.
11. Brewaeys, A., Golombok, S., Naaktgeboven, N., et al. Donor insemination: Dutch parents‘ opinions about confidentiality, the donor anonymity and the emotional adjustment of their children. Hum Reprod, 1997, 12(7), p. 1591–1597.
12. Brewaeys, A., de Bruyn, JK., Louwe, LA., Helmerhorst, FM. Anonymous or identity–registered sperm donors? A study of Dutch recipients‘ choices. Hum Reprod, 2005, 20(3), p. 820–824.
13. Broderick, P., Walker, I. Donor gametes and embryos: who want to know what about whom, and why? Politics Life Sci, 2004, 20, p. 29–42.
14. Cahn, N. Do tell! The rights of donor-conceived offspring. Hofstra Law Review, 2014, 42, p. 1077–1124.
15. Crawshaw, M., Montuschi, O. Participants‘ views of attending parenthood preparation workshops for those contemplating donor conception parenthood. J Infant Reprod Psychol, 2013, 31, p. 58–71.
16. Daniels, KR., Taylor, K. Secrecy and openness in donor insemination. Polit Life Sci, 1993, 12, p. 155–170.
17. Daniels, K. The social responsibility of gamete providers. J Community Appl Soc, 1998, 8, p. 261–271.
18. Daniels, KR., Thorn, P. Sharing information with donor insemination offspring: A child-conception versus a family building approach. Hum Reprod, 2001, 16(9), p. 1792–1796.
19. Daniels, KR., Grace, VM., Gillett, WR. Factors associated with parents‘ decisions to tell their adult offspring about the offspring‘s donor conception. Hum Reprod, 2011, 26(10), p. 2783–2790.
20. EIM – The European IVF-Monitoring Consortium for the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE); C. Calhaz-Jorge, C., de Geyter, M. S., Kupka, J., et al. Assisted reproductive technology in Europe, 2012: results generated from European registers by ESHRE. Hum Reprod, 2016, 31(8), p. 1638–1652.
21. Freeman, T., Zadeh, S., Smith, V., Golombok, S. Disclosure of sperm donation: a comparison between solo mother and two-parent families with identifiable donors. Reprod BioMed Online, 2016, 33(5), p. 592–600.
22. Godman, KM., Sanders, K., Rosenberg, M., Burton, P. Potential sperm donors‘, recipients‘ and their partners‘ opinions towards the release of identifying information in Western Australia. Hum Reprod, 2006, 21(11), p. 3022–3026.
23. Golombok, S., Cook, R., Bish, A., Murray, C. Families created by the new reproductive technologies: Quality of parenting and social and emotional development of the children. Child Dev, 1995, 64(5), p. 285–298.
24. Golombok, S., Brewaeys, A., Cook, R., et al. The European Study of Assisted Reproduction Families. Hum Reprod, 1996, 1(10), p. 2324–2331.
25. Golombok, S., Murray, C., Brinsden, P., Abdalla, H. Social versus biological parenting: Family functioning and the socioemotional development of children conceived by egg or sperm donation. J Child Psychol Psychiatry, 1999, 40(4), p. 519–527.
26. Golombok, S., Brewaeys, A., Giavazzi, MT., et al. The European Study of Assisted Reproduction Families: The transition to adolescence. Hum Reprod, 2002, 17(3), p. 830–840.
27. Golombok, S., Lyccet, E., MacCallum, F., et al. Parenting infants conceived by gamete donation. J Fam Psychology, 2004, 18(3), p. 443–452.
28. Golombok, S., Jadva, V., Lyccet, E., et al. Families created by gamete donation: Follow-up at age 2. Hum Reprod, 2005, 20(1), p. 286–293.
29. Golombok, S., Readings, J., Blake, L., et al. Children conceived by gamete donation. The impact of opennes about donor conception on psychological adjustment and parent-child relationships at age 7. J Fam Psychol, 2011, 25(2), p. 230–239.
30. Golombok, S., Blake, L., Casey, P., et al. Children born through reproductive donation: a longitudinal study of psychological adjustment. J Child Psychol Psychiatry, 2013, 54(6), p. 653–660.
31. Golombok, S. Modern families: Parents and children in new family forms. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 2015, pp. 267.
32. Gottlieb, C., Lalos, O., Lindblad, F. Disclosure of donor insemination to the child: The impact of Swedish legislation on couples´attitudes. Hum Reprod, 2000, 15(9), p. 2052–2056.
33. Greenfeld, DA., Klock, S. Disclosure decisions among known and anonymous oocyte donation recipients. Fertil Steril, 2004, 81, p. 1565–1571.
34. Hargreaves, K., Daniels, KR. Parents dilemmas in sharing donor insemination conception stories with their children. Children and Society, 2007, 21(21), p. 420–431.
35. Hahn, SJ., Craft-Rosenberg, M. The disclosure decisions of parents who conceive children using donor eggs. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs, 2002, 31, p. 283–293.
36. Hammarberg, K., Carmichael, M., Tinney, L., Mulder, A. Gamete donors‘ and recipients‘ evaluation of donor counselling: a prospective longitudinal cohort study. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol, 2008, 48, p. 601–606.
37. Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. 2004 [online]. Disclosure of Donor Insemination regulations. Available at: www.opsi.gov.uk/SI/si2004/20041511.htm. Accessed March, 1, 2017.
38. Indekeu, A., Dierickx, K., Schotsmans, P., et al. Factors contributing to parental decision-making in disclosing donor conception: a systematic review. Hum Reprod Update, 2013, 19(6), p. 714–733.
39. Isaksson, S., Skoog Svanberg, A., Sydsjö, G., et al. Two decades after legislation on identifiable donors in Sweden: are recipient couples ready to be open about using gamete donation? Hum Reprod, 2011, 26(4), p. 853–860.
40. Isaksson, S., Sydsjö, G., Skoog Svanberg, A., Lampic, C. 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. Hum Reprod, 2012, 27(10), p. 2998–3007.
41. Isaksson, S., Skoog-Svanberg, A., Sydsjö, G., et al. It takes two to tango: information sharing with offspring among heterosexual parents following identifiable sperm donation. Hum Reprod, 2016, 31(1), p. 125–132.
42. Klock, SC., Maier, D. Psychological factors related to donor insemination. Fertil Steril, 1991, 56(3), p. 489–495.
43. Klock, SC. To tell or not to tell. The issue of privacy and disclosure in infertility treatment. In: Leiblum, SR. (ed.). Infertility. Psychological issues and counseling strategies. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1997, p. 167–188.
44. Konečná, H., Klůfa, J., Doskočil, O., Bubleová, V. Anonymní dárcovství gamet a anonymní porody: společné eticko-psychosociální a právní aspekty. Prakt Lék, 2012, 92(10), s. 498–502.
45. Konečná H. O „negenetickém“ rodičovství trochu jinak. Středisko náhradní rodinné péče, Praha 2012.
46. Lalos, A., Gottlieb, C., Lalos, O. Legislated right for donor-insemination children to know their genetic origin: A study of parental thinking. Hum Reprod, 2007, 22(6), p. 1759–1768.
47. Laruelle, C., Place, I., Demeestere, I., et al. Anonymity and secrecy options of recipient couples and donors, and ethic origin influence in three types of oocyte donation. Hum Reprod, 2011, 26(2), p. 382–390.
48. Lindblad, F., Gottlieb, C., Lalos, O. To tell or not to tell–what parents think about telling their children that they were born following donor insemination. J Psychosom Obstet Gynaecol, 2000, 21, p. 193–203.
49. Lutjen, P., Trounson, A., Leeton, J., et al. The establishment and maintenance of pregnancy using in vitro fertilization and embryo donation in patient with primary ovary failure. Nature, 1984, 307, p. 174–175.
50. Lyccet, E., Daniels, K., Curson, R., Golombok, S. School-aged children of donor insemination: a study of parents‘ disclosure patterns. Hum Reprod, 2005, 20(3), p. 810–819.
51. Mac Callum, F., Golombok, S., Brinsden, P. Parenting and child development in families with a child conceived through embryo donation. J Fam Psychol, 2007, 21(2), p. 278–287.
52. Mac Callum, F., Keeley, S. Embryo donation families: a follow-up in middle childhood. J Fam Psychol, 2008, 22(6), p. 799–808.
53. Mac Callum, F., Keeley, S. Disclosure patterns of embryo donation mothers compared with adoption and IVF. Reprod Biomed Online, 2012, 24(7), p. 745–748.
54. MacDougall, K., Becker, G., Scheib, JE., Nachtigall, RD. Strategies for disclosure: how parents approach telling their children that they were conceived with donor gametes. Fertil Steril, 2007, 87(3), p. 524–533.
55. Matějček, Z., Bubleová, V., Kovařík., J. Pozdní následky psychické deprivace. 1. vyd. Praha: PCP.
56. McWhinnie, A. Gamete donation and anonymity: should offspring from donated gametes continue to be denied knowledge of their origins and antecedents? Hum Reprod, 2001, 16(5), p. 807–817.
57. Murray, C., MacCallum, F., Golombok, S. Egg donation parents and their children: Follow-up at age 12 years. Fertil Steril, 2006, 85(3), p. 610–618.
58. Nachtigall, RD., Tschann, JM., Szkupinski Quiroga, S., et al. Stigma, disclosure, and family functioning among parents of children conceived through donor insemination. Fertil Steril, 1997, 68(1), p. 83–89.
59. Owen, L., Golombok, S. Families created by assisted reproduction: Parent-child relationship in late adolescence. J Adolescence, 2009, 32(4), p. 835–848.
60. Pennings, G., de Wert, G., Shenfield, F., et al. ESHRE Task Force on Ethics and Law 15: Cross-border reproductive care. Hum Reprod, 2008, 23(10), p. 2182–2184.
61. Raoul-Duval, A., Letur-Konirsch, H., Frydman, R. Anonymous oocyte donation: a psychological study of recipients, donors and children. Hum Reprod, 1992, 7(1), p. 51–54.
62. Ravelingien, A., Provoost, V., Pennings, G. Donor-conceived children looking for their sperm donor: what do they want to know? FVV in OBGYN, 2013, 5(4), p. 257–264.
63. Ravitski, V. Knowing where you come from: the rights of donor-conceived individuals and the meaning of genetic relatedness. Minnesota J Law Sci Technology, 2010, 11, p. 655–684.
64. Readings, J., Blake, L., Casey, P., et al. Secrecy, disclosure and everything in – between: decisions of parents of children conceived by donor insemination, egg donation and surrogacy. Reprod Biomed Online, 2011, 22(5), p. 485–495.
65. Sabatello, M. Regulating gamete donation in the U.S.: Ethical, legal and social implications. Laws, 2015, 4(3), p. 352–376.
66. Sälevaara. M., Suikkari, AM., Söderström-Anttila, V. Attitudes and disclosure decisions of Finnish parents with children conceived using donor sperm. Human Reprod, 2013, 28(10), p. 2746–2754.
67. Scheib, JE., Riordan, M., Rubin, S. Choosing identity – release sperm donors: the parents‘ perspective 13–18 years later. Hum Reprod, 2003, 18(5), p. 1115–1127.
68. Shelton, KH., Boivin, J., Hay, D., et al. Examining differences in psychological adjustment problems among children conceived by assisted reproductive technologies. Intern J Behavioral Development, 2009, 33, p. 385–392.
69. Shenfield, F., de Mouzon, J., Pennings, G., et al. ESHRE Taskforce on Cross Border Reproductive Care. Cross border reproductive care in six European countries. Hum Reprod, 2010, 25(6), p. 1361–1368.
70. Shenfield, F., Pennings, G., de Mouzon, J., et al. On behalf of the ESHRE Taskforce Cross Border Reproductive Care, ESHRE‘s good practice guide for cross-border reproductive care for centers and practitioners, Hum Reprod, 2011, 26, p. 1625–1627.
71. Směrnice komise 2006/17/ES ze dne 8. února 2006, kterou se provádí směrnice Evropského parlamentu a Rady 2004/23/ES, pokud jde o určité technické požadavky na darování, opatřování a vyšetřování lidských tkání a buněk. Úřední věstník Evropské komise, 8. 2. 2006.
72. Söderström-Anttila, V., Sälevaara, M., Suikkari, AM. Increasing openness in oocyte donation families regarding disclosure over 15 years. Hum Reprod, 2010, 25(10), p. 2535–2542.
73. Trounson, A., Leeton, J., Besanka, M., Wood, C., Conti, A. Pregnancy established in an infertile patient after transfer of a donated embryo fertilised in vitro. BMJ, 1983, 286, p. 835–838.
74. ÚZIS/NRAR. Asistovaná reprodukce v České republice 2014. Praha, 2014.
75. van den Akker, O. A review of family donor constructs: current research and future directions. Hum Reprod, 2006, 12(2), p. 91–101.
76. Vanfraussen, K., Ponjaert-Kristoffersen, I., Brewaeys, A. Family functioning in lesbian families created by donor insemination. Am J Orthopsychiatry, 2003, 73(1), p. 78–90.
77. Velleman JD. Persons on prospect. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 2008, 36, p. 221–288.
78. Zákon č. 373/2011 Sb., o specifických zdravotních službách. In: Sbírka zákonů, 6. 11. 2011.
Labels
Paediatric gynaecology Gynaecology and obstetrics Reproduction medicineArticle was published in
Czech Gynaecology
2017 Issue 4
Most read in this issue
- Catamenial pneumothorax – case reports and literature review
- Large hematoma – early postoperative complication after the transobturator tape procedure
- Suburethral sling removal due to chronic pain
- Laparoscopic and robotic sacropexy: retrospective review of learning curve experiences and follow-up