Abstract
There has been little research on the views and experiences of non-biological parents
of sperm donor children. This paper reports the results of a survey of non-biological
mothers and fathers. An online survey was designed and conducted by the Donor Sibling
Registry, a US-based non-profit organization that supports those who have used donor
conception. A total of 244 people responded (199 non-biological mothers and 45 non-biological
fathers). The survey aimed to understand the perspectives of the respondents who had
used donor spermatozoa within heterosexual or same-sex relationships, by exploring
their views on a number of key issues. Certain issues and concerns associated with
not being genetically related to their offspring were experienced differently by men
and women. However, there were many important areas of common ground: a concern for
getting a healthy donor, the importance of matching the donor to the non-biological
partner, and the amount of thought that went into selecting the donor. The implications
of these results for policies concerning donor spermatozoa are discussed.
There has been little research on the views and experiences of non-biological parents
of sperm donor children born from assisted conception. This paper reports the results
of a survey of 244 non-biological mothers and fathers. An online survey designed by
the Donor Sibling Registry, a US-based non-profit organization that supports those
who have used donor conception, was conducted. Two hundred and forty four people responded
(199 non-biological mothers and 45 non-biological fathers). The survey aimed to understand
the perspectives of these parents within heterosexual and same-sex relationships who
had used donor insemination in greater depth by exploring their views on a number
of key issues. Certain issues and concerns that related to not being genetically related
to their offspring were experienced differently by the men and women. However, there
were many important areas of common ground: a concern for getting a healthy donor,
the importance of matching the donor to the non-biological partner and the amount
of thought that went into selecting the donor. The implications of these results for
policies concerning donor insemination will be discussed.
Keywords
To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
Purchase one-time access:
Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online accessOne-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:
Subscribe to Reproductive BioMedicine OnlineAlready a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
References
- What’s in a name? An exploration of the significance of the choice of surnames given to the children born within female same sex families.Sexualities. 2005; 8: 239-254
- Seeking sperm: accounts of lesbian couples’ reproductive decision making and understandings of the needs of the child.Int. J. Law Policy Family. 2006; 20: 1-22
- Lesbian couples requesting donor insemination: an update of knowledge with regard to lesbian mother families.Hum. Reprod. Update. 2001; : 512-519
- Resemblance talk: a challenge for parents whose children were conceived with donor gametes in the US.Soc. Sci. Med. 2005; 61: 1300-1309
- About as solid as a fish net’: symbolic construction of a legitimate parental identity for nonbiological lesbian mothers.J. Family Commun. 2006; 6: 201-220
- Donor conceived peoples’ access to genetic and biographical history.Int. J. Law Policy Family. 2009; 23: 174-191
- Family building in donor conception: parents’ experiences of sharing information.J. Reprod. Infant Psychol. 2010; 28: 116-127
- Planned lesbian families: their desire and motivation to have children.Hum. Reprod. 2003; 18: 2216-2224
- Anonymous or identity-registered sperm donors? A study of Dutch recipients’ choices.Hum. Reprod. 2005; 20: 820-824
- Fear, fascination and the sperm donor as ‘abjection’ in interviews with heterosexual recipients of donor insemination.Sociol. Health Ill. 2009; 31: 705-718
- Randomized, controlled trials, observational studies, and the hierarchy of research designs.N. Engl. J. Med. 2000; 342: 1887-1892
- Imagination and integrity: decision-making among lesbian couples to use medically provided donor insemination.Cult. Health Sex. 2008; 10: 649-665
- Opting into motherhood: Lesbians blurring the boundaries and transforming the meaning of parenthood and kinship.Gender Soc. 2000; 14: 11-35
- Gamete donation: parents’ experiences of searching for their child’s donor siblings and donor.Hum. Reprod. 2009; 24: 505-516
- US National longitudinal lesbian family study: psychological adjustment of 17-year-old adolescents.Pediatrics. 2010; 126: 28-36
- The national lesbian family study: 1 – interviews with prospective mothers.Am. J. Orthopsychiatry. 1996; 66: 272-281
- The national lesbian family study: 3 – interviews with mothers of five-year-olds.Am. J. Orthopsychiatry. 2000; 70: 542-548
- Growing up in a Lesbian Family.The Guildford Press, 1997
- The European study of assisted reproduction families: family functioning and child development’.Hum. Reprod. 1996; 11: 2324-2331
- Non-genetic and non-gestational parenthood: consequences for parent–child relationships and the psychological well-being of mothers, fathers and children at age 3.Hum. Reprod. 2006; 21: 1918-1924
- The donor, the father, and the imaginary constitution of the family: parents’ constructions in the case of donor insemination.Soc. Sci. Med. 2008; 66: 301-314
- Recreating the family.in: McNeil M. Varcoe I. Yearley S. The New Reproductive Technologies. Macmillan Press, Basingstoke, UK1990: 154-172
- ‘Everybody’s got a dad…’ issues for lesbian families in the management of donor insemination.Sociol. Health Ill. 2000; 22: 477-499
- Gender genetics and generation: reformulating biology in lesbian kinship’.Cult. Anthropol. 1995; 10: 41-63
- The regulation of genetic aspects of donated reproductive tissue – the need for federal regulation.Columbia Sci. Technol. Law Rev. 2010; XI: 244-308
HFEA, 2004. Code of Practice. London HFEA.
HFEA Seed Review, 2005. London HFEA.
HFEA, 2009. Code of Practice. London HFEA.
- The experiences of adolescents and adults conceived by sperm donation: comparisons by age of disclosure and family type.Hum. Reprod. 2009; 24: 1909-1919
- Looking like a family: negotiating bio-genetic continuity in British lesbian Families.Sexualities. 2005; 8: 221-237
- US oocyte donors: a retrospective study of medical and psychosocial issues.Hum. Reprod. 2009; 24: 3144-3149
- Reproductive laboratory regulations, certifications and reporting.in: Carrell D. Peterson C.M. Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility Integrating Modern Clinical and Laboratory Practice. Springer, New York2010: 55-70
- Condemned to be meaningful: non responses in studies of men and infertility.Sociol. Health Ill. 1996; 18: 4337-4454
- School-aged children of donor insemination: a study of parents’ disclosure patterns.Hum. Reprod. 2005; 20: 810-819
- Strategies for disclosure: how parents approach telling their children that they were conceived with donor gametes.Fertil. Steril. 2007; 87: 524-533
- Parenthood and the human fertilisation and embryology act 2008.Bionews. 2009; : 502
MRC, 2005. Good Research Practice, Medical Research Council, London.
- Stigma, disclosure, and family functioning among parents of children conceived through donor insemination.Fertil. Steril. 1997; 68: 83-89
- Does biology matter? Lesbian couples’ transition to parenthood and their division of labor.Qual. Sociol. 1997; 20: 153-185
- Choosing between anonymous and identity-release sperm donors: recipient and donor characteristics.Reprod. Technol. (formerly Assist. Reprod. Rev.). 2000; 10: 50-58
- Choosing identity-release sperm donors: the parents’ perspective 13–18 years later.Hum. Reprod. 2003; 18: 1115-1127
- Contact among families who share the same sperm donor.Fertil. Steril. 2008; 90: 33-43
- How parents whose children have been conceived with donor gametes make their disclosure decision: contexts, influences, and couple dynamics.Fertil. Steril. 2008; 89: 179-187
- Genetic testing of sperm donors: survey of current practice.Fertil. Steril. 2010; 94: 126-129
- On the validity of inferences from non-random samples.J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. A (Gen). 1983; 146: 394-403
- Negotiating lesbian family identity via symbols and rituals.J. Family Issues. 2008; 29: 26-47
- Decision-making in planned lesbian parenting: an interpretative phenomenological analysis.J. Community Appl. Soc. Psychol. 2002; 12: 194-209
- What does it mean to be a donor offspring? The identity experiences of adults conceived by donor insemination and the implications for counselling and therapy.Hum. Reprod. 2000; 15: 2041-2051
- Donor insemination and parenting: concerns and strategies of lesbian couples. A review of international studies.Acta Obstet. Gynecol. Scand. 2008; 87: 697-701
Article info
Publication history
Published online: January 27, 2012
Accepted:
January 12,
2012
Received in revised form:
December 22,
2011
Received:
March 15,
2011
Declaration: The authors report no financial or commercial conflicts of interest.Footnotes
Lucy Frith is Senior Lecturer in Bioethics and Social Science at the University of Liverpool. Her research interests include: reproductive technologies, ethical decision-making in practice, social and ethical aspects of maternity care and women’s health, and empirical and organizational ethics.
Identification
Copyright
© 2012 Reproductive Healthcare Ltd. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
