Book contents
- Donor-Linked Families in the Digital Age
- Donor-Linked Families in the Digital Age
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Tables
- Contributors
- Acknowledgements
- Donor-Conceived Families
- Part I ‘DIY’ Donor Linking: Issues and Implications
- Chapter 1 Accessing Origins Information
- Chapter 2 Recipient Parents Using Do-It-Yourself Methods to Make Early Contact with Donor Relatives
- Chapter 3 Donor-Linked Families Connecting through Social Media
- Chapter 4 The Contact Expectations of Australian Sperm Donors Who Connect with Recipients via Online Platforms
- Chapter 5 Parents’ and Offsprings’ Experience of Insemination Fraud
- Part II Children’s and Adults’ Lived Experiences in Diverse Donor-Linked Families
- Part III Institutionalised Resistance to Openness
- Index
- References
Chapter 5 - Parents’ and Offsprings’ Experience of Insemination Fraud
A Qualitative Study
from Part I - ‘DIY’ Donor Linking: Issues and Implications
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 13 July 2023
Book contents
- Donor-Linked Families in the Digital Age
- Donor-Linked Families in the Digital Age
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Tables
- Contributors
- Acknowledgements
- Donor-Conceived Families
- Part I ‘DIY’ Donor Linking: Issues and Implications
- Chapter 1 Accessing Origins Information
- Chapter 2 Recipient Parents Using Do-It-Yourself Methods to Make Early Contact with Donor Relatives
- Chapter 3 Donor-Linked Families Connecting through Social Media
- Chapter 4 The Contact Expectations of Australian Sperm Donors Who Connect with Recipients via Online Platforms
- Chapter 5 Parents’ and Offsprings’ Experience of Insemination Fraud
- Part II Children’s and Adults’ Lived Experiences in Diverse Donor-Linked Families
- Part III Institutionalised Resistance to Openness
- Index
- References
Summary
The experience of families who resort to donor sperm conception has been rather well documented. However, how this experience unfolds in the context of insemination fraud is for the most part still unknown. The focus so far has been on the ethical principles this fraud violates and the reasons why it has not been criminally charged. This chapter presents the results of an exploratory qualitative study carried out with 13 Canadian participants who were victims of insemination fraud. With a focus on the experience of the discovery of the insemination fraud by parents and donor-conceived offspring, this chapter discusses the trajectory of this discovery, the emotions associated with it, and its disclosure to minor children. Although the experience varies according to the nature of the fraud, and the circumstances of its discovery, common patterns can be observed: shock, sideration and disbelief, feelings of being betrayed by the medical institution.
Keywords
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Donor-Linked Families in the Digital AgeRelatedness and Regulation, pp. 85 - 100Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2023
References
Agence France Presse. (2019, 12 April). Il est surnommé le “docteur sperme” aux Pays-Bas: Jan Karbaat est suspecté d’avoir utilisé sa propre semence dans sa clinique. RTL Info. www.rtl.be/info/monde/europe/il-est-surnomme-le-docteur-sperme-aux-pays-bas-jan-karbaat-est-suspecte-d-avoir-utilise-sa-propre-semence-dans-sa-clinique-1115904.aspxGoogle Scholar
Beeson, D. R., Jennings, P. K., & Kramer, W. (2011). Offspring searching for their sperm donors: how family type shapes the process. Human Reproduction, 26(9), 2415–2424. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/der202CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bender, L. (2003). Genes, parents, and assisted reproductive technologies: ARTs, mistakes, sex, race, and law. Columbia Journal of Gender and Law, 12, 1.Google Scholar
Bender, L. (2005). To err is human: ART mix-ups – a labor-based, relational proposal. Journal of Gender, Race and Justice, 9, 443.Google Scholar
Blake, L., Zadeh, S., Statham, H., & Freeman, T. (2014). Families created by assisted reproduction: children’s perspectives. In Freeman, T., Graham, S., Ebtehaj, F., & Richards, M. (Eds.), Relatedness in Assisted Reproduction (pp. 251–269). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Blake, L., Ilioi, E., & Golombok, S. (2016). Thoughts and feelings about the donor: a family perspective. In Freeman, T., Graham, S., Ebtehaj, F., & Richards, M. (Eds.), Relatedness in Assisted Reproduction (pp. 293–331) Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Blyth, E. (2012). Discovering the ‘facts of life’ following anonymous donor insemination. International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family, 26(2), 143–161. https://doi.org/10.1093/lawfam/ebs006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blyth, E. (2012). Genes r us? Making sense of genetic and non-genetic relationships following anonymous donor insemination. Reproductive Biomedicine Online, 24(7), 719–726. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2012.02.010Google Scholar
Byrne, E. (2019). Texas House passes bill classifying fertility fraud as sexual assault. The Texas Tribune. www.texastribune.org/2019/05/16/texas-house-bill-fertility-fraud-crime/Google Scholar
Canneaux, M., Kobilinsky, N., Wolf, J. P., Golse, B., & Beauquier-Maccotta, B. (2016). Information, transmission, secret: quel discours pour les enfants nés par don de gamètes?. Gynécologie obstétrique & fertilité, 44(7–8), 410–416. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gyobfe.2016.05.002Google Scholar
Chicoine, S. (2020). The birth of fertility fraud: how to protect Washingtonians. Washington Law Review Online, 95(1), 168–204.Google Scholar
Cho, K., Ruiter, J., & Dahan, M. H. (2018). Protecting fertility clinics against sperm-related fraud: a call to action. Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics, 35(6), 1131–1132. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-018-1175-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Couture, V., Dubois, M. A., Drouin, R., Moutquin, J. M., & Bouffard, C. (2014). Strengths and pitfalls of Canadian gamete and embryo donor registries: searching for beneficent solutions. Reproductive Biomedicine Online, 28(3), 369–379. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2013.10.020Google Scholar
Crawshaw, M. (2018). Direct-to-consumer DNA testing: the fallout for individuals and their families unexpectedly learning of their donor conception origins. Human Fertility, 21(4), 225–228. https://doi.org/10.1080/14647273.2017.1339127CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Freeman, T. (2015). Gamete donation, information sharing and the best interests of the child: an overview of the psychosocial evidence. Monash Bioethics Review, 33(1), 45–63. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40592-015-0018-yGoogle Scholar
Freeman, T., Jadva, J., & Slutsky, J. (2016). Sperm donors limited: psychosocial aspects of genetic connections and the regulation of offspring numbers. In Golombok, S., Scott, R., Appelby, J. B., Richards, M., Wilkinson, S. (Eds.), Regulating Reproductive Donation (pp. 165–184) Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Frith, L., Blyth, E., Crawshaw, M., & van den Akker, O. (2018). Secrets and disclosure in donor conception. Sociology of Health & Illness, 40(1), 188–203. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9566.12633CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Golombok, S. (2015). Modern Families: Parents and Children in New Family Forms. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gruben, V., Cattapan, A., Cameron, A., Busby, K., Baylis, F., Carsley, S., … & White, P. (2019). Joint Submission to Health Canada on Prepublication of Proposed Regulations to the Assisted Human Reproduction Act.Google Scholar
Guichon, J. R., Mitchell, I., & Giroux, M. (Eds.), (2012). The Right to Know One’s Origins: Assisted Human Reproduction and the Best Interests of Children. ASP.Google Scholar
Harper, J. C., Kennett, D., & Reisel, D. (2016). The end of donor anonymity: how genetic testing is likely to drive anonymous gamete donation out of business. Human Reproduction, 31(6), 1135–1140. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dew065CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jadva, V., Freeman, T., Kramer, W., & Golombok, S. (2009). The experiences of adolescents and adults conceived by sperm donation: comparisons by age of disclosure and family type. Human Reproduction, 24(8), 1909–1919. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dep110CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
MacBride, K. (2021). Fertility doctors used their sperm to get patients pregnant. The children want justice. Vice News. www.vice.com/en/article/y3g5qy/fertility-doctors-used-their-sperm-to-get-patients-pregnant-the-children-want-justiceGoogle Scholar
Mac Dougall, K., Becker, G., Scheib, J. E., & Nachtigall, R. D. (2007). Strategies for disclosure: how parents approach telling their children that they were conceived with donor gametes. Fertility and Sterility, 87(3), 524–533. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2006.07.1514CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Madeira, J. L. (2019). Uncommon misconceptions: holding physicians accountable for insemination fraud. Law & Inequality, 37, 45.Google Scholar
Madeira, J. L. (2020). Understanding illicit insemination and fertility fraud, from patient experience to legal reform. Columbia Journal of Gender & Law, 39, 110.Google Scholar
Mahlstedt, P. P., LaBounty, K., & Kennedy, W. T. (2010). 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. Fertility and Sterility, 93(7), 2236–2246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2008.12.119CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Miola, J. (2004). Mix-ups, mistake and moral judgement: recent developments in UK law on assisted conception. Feminist Legal Studies, 12(1), 67–77. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:FEST.0000026125.37716.d5Google Scholar
Nelson, M. K., Hertz, R., & Kramer, W. (2013). Making sense of donors and donor siblings: A comparison of the perceptions of donor-conceived offspring in lesbian-parent and heterosexual-parent families. In Visions of the Twenty-First Century Family: Transforming Structures and Identities (pp. 1–42). Emerald Group Publishing.Google Scholar
Paillé, P., & Mucchielli, A. (2016). L’analyse qualitative en sciences humaines et sociales. Quatrième édition. ed. Malakoff, . Armand Colin.Google Scholar
Paye, E. (2018). Barwin’s babies: the remarkable story of a disgraced Ottawa fertility doctor and those who say they are his children. Ottawa Citizen. https://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news/barwins-babiesGoogle Scholar
Pennings, G., Klitzman, R., Zegers-Hochschild, F. (2016). International regulation and cross-country comparisons. In Golombok, S., Scott, R., Appelby, J.B., Richards, M., Wilkinson, S. (Eds.), Regulating Reproductive Donation (pp. 39–59). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rodino, I. S., Burton, P. J., & Sanders, K. A. (2011). Donor information considered important to donors, recipients and offspring: an Australian perspective. Reproductive BioMedicine Online, 22(3), 303–311. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2010.11.007CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sharak, S. (2020). Richards v. Kiken and the legal implications of fertility fraud. American Journal of Law & Medicine, 46(4), 528–535.Google Scholar
Tabachnik, S. (2020, 9 January). Proposed bill would finally make it a felony for doctors to inseminate patients with their own sperm. Denver Post. www.denverpost.com/2020/01/09/fertility-fraud-paul-jones-sperm-doctor-colorado/Google Scholar
The Associated Press. (2016, 12 September). Indiana fertility doctor used own sperm to impregnate patients, court docs say. CBS News. www.cbsnews.com/news/indiana-fertility-doctor-used-own-sperm-to-impregnate-women-court-docs-say/Google Scholar
Trépanier, A. (2020, 15 June). Class-action lawsuit against disgraced fertility doctor grows. CBS News. www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/norman-barwin-class-action-16-biological-children-1.5609426Google Scholar
Wright, K. (2016). Limiting offspring numbers: can we justify regulation? In Golombok, S., Scott, R., Appelby, J. B., Richards, M., & Wilkinson, S. (Eds.), Regulating Reproductive Donation (pp. 185–204). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar