The question whether or not parents of children conceived after donor insemination (DI) tell their offspring about its biological background was addressed. Swedish legislation from 1985 gives the child born after DI the right, when grown up, to receive identifying information about the sperm donor. Until now no information about compliance with the law has been available. All parents who gave birth to a child by DI after the new legislation in two major Swedish fertility centres (Stockholm and Umeâ) received a questionnaire containing questions about the issue of informing the child. The response rate was 80%. The majority of parents (89%) had not informed their children, whereas 59% had told someone else. As a response to an open question, 105/132 parents chose to comment on their answer about not having informed their child. Of these families, 61 intended to tell their child later, 16 were not sure and 28 were not going to inform the child. Compliance with the law must be regarded as low since only 52% of the parents had told or intended to tell their child. In addition, concern is raised about the children who run the risk of being informed by someone other than their parents.
There was a discrepancy between the intentions of the legislation and how parents act in relation to them. To improve compliance, it is crucial to organize education, support and ethical discussion among professionals, and to offer parents, and parents-to-be, counselling, support and group sessions with other DI families.
Pubertal delay still existed among the CF patients despite good clinical status. The patients homozygous for deltaF508 and those with pathological OGTT showed the most delayed puberty.
Pioneering legislation regarding donor insemination was introduced in Sweden in 1985. The law gives the child, upon reaching sufficient maturity, the right to obtain information about the donor and his identity. One hundred and forty-eight Swedish couples with children conceived through donor insemination after the law was introduced have answered questions about disclosure and donation in a questionnaire. This article addresses the reasoning employed by individual couples in their decision whether or not to inform the children about their origin. Parental reflections on their decision and the children's reactions to receiving this information are also presented. Five categories of parental arguments are reported. These included 'reasons to tell', 'reasons not to tell', 'reasons why the question about telling or not would not be answered at all', 'inconclusive types of reasoning, that can still influence the fundamental decision' and 'context-dependent reasons associated with actual circumstances'. Through this meta-classification of arguments it was possible to identify clues to how professionals could facilitate parental decision-making and promote disclosure. Parents who had informed their children did not regret their decision. All of the parents who responded to the question of whether it had been beneficial to the child to tell answered 'yes'.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.