Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T23:33:43.406Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Information Sharing in Donor Insemination: A Conflict of Rights and Needs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 July 2009

Ken R. Daniels
Ken R. Daniels
Affiliation:
Head of Department and Senior Lecturer in Social Work, Department of Social Work, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

It is now 110 years since the first reported medical use of donor insemination (DI). Despite its somewhat doubtful beginnings and its chequered history, especially up until the 1970s, DI has become a well accepted and utilised part of most infertility treatment services. An American survey in 1988 reported that approximately 80,000 women a year undergo the procedure, and that over 30,000 children are born each year. The only figures from the United Kingdom cover a 5-month period between August 1 and December 31, 1991, and show that 4,260 patients were treated with DI during this period. The treatment was carried out in 85 different centres.

Type
Articles
Information
Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics , Volume 4 , Issue 2 , Spring 1995 , pp. 217 - 224
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1995

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

1. Hard, AD. Artificial impregnation. Medical World 1909;27:163.Google Scholar

2. Office of Technology Assessment, US Congress. Artificial Insemination: Practice in the United States. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1988.Google Scholar

3. Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. Second Annual Report. London: HFEA, 1993.Google Scholar

4. Knoppers, BM, LeBris, S. Recent advances in medically assisted conception: legal, ethical, and social issues. American Journal of Law and Medicine 1991;17:329–61.Google Scholar

5. Daniels, KR, Gunby, J, Legge, M, Williams, TH, Wynn-Williams, DB. Issues and problems for the infertile couple. New Zealand Medical Journal 1984;97:185–7.Google ScholarPubMed

6. Daniels, KR. Infertility counselling: the need for a psychosocial perspective. British Journal of Social Work 1993;23:501–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

7. Daniels, KR. Artificial insemination using donor semen and the issues of secrecy – the views of donors and recipient couples. Social Science and Medicine 1988;27:377–83.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

8. Daniels, KR. Relationships between semen donors and their networks. Australian Journal of Social Work 1991;44:1–7.Google Scholar

9. Novaes, S. Giving, receiving, repaying: gamete donors and donor policies in reproductive medicine. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 1989;5:639–57.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

10. Novaes, S. Summary of conclusions. In: Glover, J (chairman). Fertility and the Family: The Glover Report on New Reproductive Technologies to the European Commission. London: Fourth Estate, 1989:149.Google Scholar

11. Rowland, R. The social and psychological consequences of secrecy in artificial insemination by donor (AID) programmes. Social Science & Medicine 1985;21:391–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

12. Daniels, KR. Relationships between semen donors and their networks. Australian Journal of Social Work 1991;44:1–7.Google Scholar

13. Daniels, KR. Semen donors in New Zealand: their characteristics and attitudes. Clinical Reproduction and Fertility 1987;4:341–51.Google Scholar

14. Daniels, KR. Semen donors: their motivations and attitudes to their offspring. Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psychology 1989;7:121–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

15. Daniels, KR. Work in progress relating to current studies of semen donors in Sweden, Poland, and the United Kingdom.Google Scholar

16. Daniels, KR. The psychosocial needs of semen donors. In: Wijma, K, Von Schoultz, B, Eds. Reproductive Life: Advances in Psychosomatic Obstetrics and Gynaecology. Carnforth: Parthenon, 1992;563–70.Google Scholar

17. Snowden, R, Mitchell, GD. The Artificial Family: A Consideration of Artificial Insemination by Donor. London: George Allen & Unwin, 1981.Google Scholar

18. Snowden, R, Mitchell, GD, Snowden, EM. Artificial Reproduction: A Social Investigation, London: George Allen & Unwin, 1983.Google Scholar

19. Lasker, JN, Borg, S. Secrecy and the new reproductive technologies. In: Whiteford, LM, Poland, ML, Eds. New Approaches to Human Reproduction: Social and Ethical Dimensions. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1989.Google Scholar

20. Beck, WW. Two hundred years of artificial insemination. Fertility & Sterility 1984;41:193–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

21. Joyce, DN. The implications of greater openness concerning AID. In: AID and After: Papers from BAAF, BASW, and a Scottish Working Party. London: British Agencies for Adopting and Fostering, 1984.Google Scholar

22. Rowland, R. Attitudes and opinions of donors on an artificial insemination by donor (AID) programme. Clinical Reproduction & Fertility 1983;2:249–59.Google ScholarPubMed

23. Annas, G. Fathers anonymous: beyond the best interests of the sperm donor. Family Law Quarterly 1980;14:1–13.Google ScholarPubMed

24. Haderka, J. Artificial reproduction in Czechoslovak law with special reference to other European socialist countries. International journal of Law and the Family 1987;1:72–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

25. Daniels, KR, Taylor, K. Secrecy and openness in donor insemination. Politics and the Life Sciences 1993;12:155–70.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

26. Turner, C. A call for openness in donor insemination. Politics and the Life Sciences 1993;12:197–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

27. Rowland, R. Attitudes and opinions of donors on an artificial insemination by donor (AID) programme. Clinical Reproduction & Fertility 1983;2:249–59.Google ScholarPubMed

28. Daniels, KR, Taylor, K. Secrecy and openness in donor insemination. Politics and the Life Sciences 1993;12:155–70.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

29. Daniels, KR. Artificial insemination using donor semen and the issues of secrecy – the views of donors and recipient couples. Social Science and Medicine 1988;27:377–83.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

30. Daniels, KR. Semen Donors in New Zealand: their characteristics and attitudes. Clinical Reproduction and Fertility 1987;4:341–51.Google Scholar

31. Daniels, KR. Semen donors: their motivations and attitudes to their offspring. Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psychology 1989;7:121–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

32. Purdie, A, Peek, JC, Irwin, R, Ellis, J, Graham, FM, Fisher, PR. Identifiable semen donors: attitudes of donors and recipient couples. New Zealand Medical journal 1992;105:27–8.Google ScholarPubMed

33. Daniels, KR. New birth technologies – a social work approach to researching the psychosocial issues. Social Work in Health Care 1986;11:49–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

34. Daniels, KR. Work in progress.Google Scholar

35. Purdie, A, Peek, JC, Irwin, R, Ellis, J, Graham, FM, Fisher, PR. Identifiable semen donors: attitudes of donors and recipient couples. New Zealand Medical journal 1992;105:27–8.Google ScholarPubMed

36. Snowden, R, Mitchell, GD, Snowden, EM. Artificial Reproduction: A Social Investigation London: George Allen & Unwin, 1983.Google Scholar

37. Turner, C. A call for openness in donor insemination. Politics and the Life Sciences 1993;12:197–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

38. McWhinnie, AM. The child, the family and society. In: Bruce, N, Mitchell, A, Priestley, K, Eds. Truth and the Child; A Contribution to the Debate on the Warnock Report. Edinburgh: Family Care, 1988.Google Scholar

39. Triseliotis, J. Donor insemination and the child. Politics and the Life Sciences 1993;12:195–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

40. Snowden, R, Mitchell, GD, Snowden, EM. Artificial Reproduction: A Social Investigation London: George Allen & Unwin, 1983.Google Scholar

41. Ashe, A. (Chair) Creating children: Report of the Family Law Council of Australia. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service, 1985.Google Scholar

42. Warnock, M. The good of the child. Bioethics 1987;1:141–55.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

43. Snowden, R, Mitchell, GD. The Artificial Family: A Consideration of Artificial Insemination by Donor. London: George Allen & Unwin, 1981.Google Scholar

44. Haimes, E. Gamete donation and the social management of genetic origins. In: Stacey, M, Ed. Changing Human Reproduction. London: Sage Publications, 1992.Google Scholar

45. Swedish Law on Artificial Insemination (1985). No. 1140/1984.

46. Daniels, KR, Lalos, O. The Swedish Insemination Act and the availability of donors. Submitted.Google Scholar

47. Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act (1990), United Kingdom.Google Scholar

48. Infertility (Medical Procedures) Act (1984), Victoria, Australia.Google Scholar

49. Status of Children Amendment Act (1987), New Zealand.Google Scholar