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
- Part II Children’s and Adults’ Lived Experiences in Diverse Donor-Linked Families
- Chapter 6 The Importance of Donor Siblings to Teens and Young Adults
- Chapter 7 The Experiences of Donor-Conceived People Making Contact with Same-Donor Offspring through Fiom’s Group Meetings
- Chapter 8 ‘It’s All on Their Terms’
- Chapter 9 On Familial Haunting
- Chapter 10 Assisted Reproduction and Making Kin Connections between Māori and Pākehā in Aotearoa New Zealand
- Chapter 11 ‘Spunkles’, Donors, and Fathers
- Part III Institutionalised Resistance to Openness
- Index
- References
Chapter 7 - The Experiences of Donor-Conceived People Making Contact with Same-Donor Offspring through Fiom’s Group Meetings
from Part II - Children’s and Adults’ Lived Experiences in Diverse Donor-Linked Families
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
- Part II Children’s and Adults’ Lived Experiences in Diverse Donor-Linked Families
- Chapter 6 The Importance of Donor Siblings to Teens and Young Adults
- Chapter 7 The Experiences of Donor-Conceived People Making Contact with Same-Donor Offspring through Fiom’s Group Meetings
- Chapter 8 ‘It’s All on Their Terms’
- Chapter 9 On Familial Haunting
- Chapter 10 Assisted Reproduction and Making Kin Connections between Māori and Pākehā in Aotearoa New Zealand
- Chapter 11 ‘Spunkles’, Donors, and Fathers
- Part III Institutionalised Resistance to Openness
- Index
- References
Summary
More and more donor-conceived people are interested in, and in contact with, same-donor offspring. Moreover, donor-conceived people can find large numbers of same-donor offspring, enabled by more openness regarding donor conception, social media, donor registers and (online) DNA testing. The impact of meeting large numbers of same-donor offspring has not yet been explored. At Fiom, a Dutch organisation providing independent support in the search for biographical information, we conducted a qualitative study interviewing 19 donor-conceived people who participated in same-donor offspring group meetings. Data showed that while relationships between same-donor offspring are commonly experienced as more beneficial than connecting with the donor, they also come with challenges such as how to integrate these new relations into their lives, how to manage group dynamics and a continuously growing network. Data revealed a need for counselling tailored to the context of multiple same-donor offspring contact. Lastly, challenges for regulators are discussed.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Donor-Linked Families in the Digital AgeRelatedness and Regulation, pp. 120 - 137Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2023
References
ANZICA (2012). Guidelines for professional standards of practice: donor linking counseling. www.fertilitysociety.com.au/wp-content/uploads/20120504-anzica-guidelines-donor-linking-final-version.pdfGoogle 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/ebs006Google Scholar
Bolt, S. H., Notermans, C., van Brouwershaven, A. C., Maas, A. J. B. M., & Indekeu, A. (2021). The ongoing work of kinship among donor half-siblings in the Netherlands. BioSocieties. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41292-021-00259-zGoogle Scholar
Crawshaw, M., Daniels, K., Adams, D., Bourne, K., van Hooff, J. A. P., Kramer, W., Pasch, L., & Thorn, P. (2016). Emerging models for facilitating contact between people genetically related through donor conception: a preliminary analysis and discussion. Reproductive Biomedicine & Society Online, 1(2), 71–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbms.2015.10.001Google Scholar
Freeman, T., Jadva, V., & Slutsky, J. (2016). Sperm donors limited: psychosocial aspects of genetic connections and the regulation of offspring. In Golombok, S., Scott, R., Appleby, J. B., Richards, M. & Wilkinson, S. (Eds.), Regulating Reproductive Donation (pp. 165–184). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316117446Google Scholar
Freeman, T., Jadva, V., Tranfield, E., & Golombok, S. (2016). Online sperm donation: a survey of the demographic characteristics, motivations, preferences and experiences of sperm donors on a connection website. Human Reproduction, 31(9), 2082–2089. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dew166Google Scholar
Hertz, R., Nelson, M. K., & Kramer, W. (2017). Donor sibling networks as a vehicle for expanding kinship: A replication and extension. Journal of Family Issues, 38(2), 248–284. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X16631018Google Scholar
Hertz, R., & Nelson, M. K. (2019). Random Families: Genetic Strangers, Sperm Donor Siblings and the Creation of New Kin. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190888275.001.0001Google Scholar
Hudson, N. (2017). Making ‘assisted world families’? Parenting projects and family practices in the context of globalized gamete donation. Sociological Research Online, 22(2), 48–58. DOI: 10.5153/sro.4246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Indekeu, A., Bolt, S., Maas, A. (2021a). Meeting multiple same-donor offspring: psychosocial challenges. Human Fertility, 25(4), 677–687. https://doi.org/10.1080/14647273.2021.1872804Google Scholar
Indekeu, A., & Hens, K. (2019). Part of my story: the meaning and experiences of genes and genetics for sperm donor-conceived offspring. New Genetics & Society, 38(1), 18–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/14636778.2018.1549476 Open AccessGoogle Scholar
Indekeu, A., Maas, A. J. B. M., McCormick, E., Benward, J., & Scheib, J. (2021b). Factors associated with searching for people related through donor conception among donor-conceived people, parents and donors: a systematic review. F&S Reviews, 2(2), 93–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.xfnr.2021.01.003Google Scholar
Jadva, V., Freeman, T., Kramer, W., & Golombok, S. (2010). Experiences of offspring searching for and contacting their donor siblings and donor. Reproductive Biomedicine Online, 20(4), 523–532. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2010.01.001CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Janssens, P. M. W., Simons, A. H. M., Van Kooij, R. J., Blokzijl, E., & Dunselman, G. A. J. (2006). A new Dutch Law regulating provision of identifying information of donors to offspring: background, content and impact. Human Reproduction, 21(4), 852–856. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dei407CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Johnson, L., Bourne, K., & Hammarberg, K. (2012). Donor conception legislation in Victoria, Australia: the ‘Time to Tell’ campaign, donor-linking and implications for clinical practice. Journal of Law and Medicine, 19(4), 803–19.Google ScholarPubMed
Kelly, F. J., & Dempsey, D. J. (2016). Experiences and motives of Australian single mothers by choice who make early contact with their child’s donor relatives. Medical Law Review, 24(4), 571–590. https://doi-org.kuleuven.e-bronnen.be/10.1093/medlaw/fww038Google Scholar
Montuschi, O., & Ellis, J. (2020). Continuing the Conversation: Talking with Young People and Adults 12yrs and Up. Donor Conception Network.Google Scholar
Mroz, J. (2011). One sperm donor, 150 offspring. New York Times. www.nytimes.com/2011/09/06/health/06donor.htmlGoogle Scholar
Mroz, J. (2021). The case of the serial sperm donor. New York Times. www.nytimes.com/2021/02/01/health/sperm-donor-fertility-meijer.htmlGoogle Scholar
Scheib, J. E., McCornick, E., Benward, J., & Ruby, A. (2020). Finding people like me: contact among young adults who share an open-identity donor. Human Reproduction Open, 2020(4). https://doi.org/10.1093/hropen/hoaa057Google Scholar
Scheib, J. E., & Ruby, A. (2009). Beyond consanguinity risk: developing donor birth limits that consider psychosocial risk factors. Fertility and Sterility, 91(5), 91, e12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2008.12.071Google Scholar
Schopler, J. H., & Galinsky, M. J. (1993). Support groups as open systems: a model for practice and research. Journal of Health and Social Work, 18(3), 195–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, K. (2016). Limiting offspring numbers: can we justify regulation? In Golombok, S., Scott, R., Appleby, J. B., Richards, M. & Wilkinson, S. (Eds.), Regulating Reproductive Donation (pp. 185–204). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316117446Google Scholar