Search

Embryo donation (ED) is the donation by a couple who have surplus embryos following IVF to another infertile person/s. There has been much debate as to whether ED can be understood as akin to gamete donation or as adoption, as these viewpoints evoke different health and welfare concerns and implications for the various parties. In this article, we discuss the legislative frameworks, policy guidelines, and practice of ED in New Zealand in comparison with those of other countries. We demonstrate how New Zealand's ED requirements and practices may invite conceptualizations of ED as adoption, as there are similar practices and procedures aimed at promoting child welfare: ED must be approved by an overseeing body, donors select recipients for their embryos, donor: recipient 'matching' is encouraged, and a joint donor: recipient meeting explores the needs and rights of children to have access to genetic knowledge, feelings related to parenting and relinquishment, and information-sharing and contact expectations. We discuss how research of donor and recipient experiences suggests that the adoption metaphor may provide a model of family-building from which to make sense of ED. However, the metaphor also highlights longer-term child welfare concerns and raises policy issues in relation to both ED as well as open adoption practices, both locally and internationally. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Current international policy trends in the field of medically assisted conception are moving towards increased openness of information regarding the nature of conception where donated gametes are involved. In the case of donor insemination this means that the donor is no longer anonymous, offspring have the right to access information about the donor''s identity, and parents are encouraged to tell children the nature of their donor-assisted conception. Until recently, however, the practice of donor insemination has tended to create the conditions for ignoring, or erasing, the existence of the donor as the provider of the gametes. Changing policy creates numerous challenges to this erasure, and to traditional conceptualisations of the father. This research is based on analysis of the narratives of a group of 41 New Zealand couples who conceived children with the assistance of donor insemination 15–18 years prior. This article focuses on their talk about the donor. The parents’ negation of the donor supports the normative formation of ‘family’, and is in turn supported by an instrumental and de-personalising discourse in relation to the donor. A tension is created within the parents’ talk whereby donors are negated and yet simultaneously appear as persons. We explore this discursive construction, suggesting that a new framework for thinking about donated gametes and the role of the donor is influencing parents’ narrations and understandings of family. We discuss these influences and examine their implications, particularly with respect to a separation of the bio-genetic from the social-environmental. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

This invited review paper, the last in a series of two, presents an overview of the research evidence concerning oocyte donors' views on anonymity and openness. In the period from 2000 to the present, nine such studies that appeared in referred journals were located. This research shows that many donors have been recruited as personal or known donors, and that many of those who were recruited as anonymous donors were willing to be identified to offspring in the future. Research from studies of potential donors is presented, and this also indicates that recruitment of identifiable donors is possible. The implications of this research evidence, particularly as it relates to professional and clinic attitudes, the motivations of donors, the demographics of those donors who are prepared to be identifiable, and to meeting the needs of donors is highlighted and used as the basis for presenting a strategic approach to the recruitment of gamete donors - both sperm and oocyte. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Parents of children conceived by gamete (sperm or egg) donation often find it challenging to share donor conception stories with their children. This study reports findings of a qualitative study of families with children conceived by donor insemination in New Zealand, a country where the policy and practice of sharing information in donor insemination is advanced. Almost all parents had told, or planned to tell, their children about their origins, but some parents faced considerable dilemmas around disclosure. Parents need to be given support and guidance as they inform their children about their donor family history. © 2007 The Author(s). Journal compilation © 2007 National Children's Bureau. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Since 1 April 2005, gamete donors in the United Kingdom (UK) have to be willing, in the future, to be identified to offspring should the offspring want this. This change in law has lead to considerable anxiety about the future availability of donors. This paper presents an overview of the research evidence concerning semen donors' views on anonymity and openness, as it appears in referred journals since 1995. Research evidence that is available, but not yet been published in referred journals, is also reviewed. The nature of this evidence is analysed and criticized. Research on the views of potential semen donors is also reviewed, as is the evidence that is available from jurisdictions that have changed the law and required donor openness. The evidence shows that it is possible to recruit semen donors who are required to be identifiable in the future. The evidence, while not conclusive, points to an open system attracting different kinds of men than an anonymous system, and this has clear implications for future recruitment policies. The evidence-based approach to recruitment of gamete donors challenges some of the beliefs, attitudes and fears that have been associated with this law change in the UK, and in other countries where similar changes have taken place. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A growing number of jurisdictions have introduced legislation to give children the right to information about, and identity of, ‘their’ gamete donor. This has been accompanied by a reduction in the social stigma associated with infertility and building families with the assistance of donated gametes. This changing culture has meant that an increasing number of parents are seeking assistance regarding how to share their family history, including the donor insemination conception story. The literature suggests that the sharing of information is best undertaken when the children are young. There is virtually no literature available for parents who wish to share their family history with adult offspring, or for those professionals whose guidance they may seek. This paper addresses this emerging area of practice. It is suggested that there are three main areas that will be of assistance with any attempt to understand the individual and family dynamics involved: identity and self-image, stigma and power. Strategies and suggestions emerging from each of these areas of knowledge are outlined. This paper aims to generate discussion and to encourage others to share their clinical experiences in this area. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Opinion. Examines the controversy surrounding privacy disclosure among patients who are using donor gametes in assisted reproduction. Reference made to the incident where two young ladies in Australia, who were annoyed at their doctors for not disclosing information about the donors of the gametes; How the controversy arises.

This response challenges the notion that paying more money, in whatever form, will overcome the anxieties of gamete donors regarding the removal of anonymity. An overview of the literature on payment and donor recruitment indicates that this is a complex issue. That literature does provide 'pointers' to the types of persons who should be 'targeted' in an information sharing and non-payment system. The experience in Sweden, both in relation to donor recruitment and parents' information-sharing with their children, is clarified, as the evidence is not always presented accurately. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]