Adolescents with open-identity sperm donors: reports from 12–17 year olds

Scheib, Joanna E.; Riordan, Michael; Rubin, Susan E.

doi:10.1093/humrep/deh581

Cited by 181 publications

(146 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

123

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The extent to which children of single mothers by choice will feel the need to know the identity of, have information about, or even form a relationship with, their donors as they grow older is, as yet, unknown. However, a small study of adolescents with identity-release donors in the United States found that those from single-mother families were more likely than their counterparts from two-parent families to plan to request the identity of their donors when they reached Age 18 (Scheib, Riordan, & Rubin, 2005). Jadva, Freeman, Kramer, and Golombok (2010) found that the majority of adolescents who searched for, and made contact with, their donors through the Donor Sibling Registry, a website designed to help donor-conceived people find their donors and donor siblings (half-siblings born from the same donor but living in different families), were from single-mother homes.…”

Section: Single Mothers By Choicementioning

confidence: 99%

Socioemotional Development in Changing Families

Golombok

Tasker

2015

Handbook of Child Psychology and Developmental Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Since the latter part of the 20th century, dramatic changes have taken place to the structure of the family such that the traditional nuclear family headed by a heterosexual married couple is now in the minority. This chapter begins with a description of these changes and some of the key factors involved. The consequences of different family contexts for parent–child relationships and children's socioemotional development are then examined. These include single‐parent families, stepparent families, cohabiting parent families, families created through assisted reproductive technologies, and families headed by same‐sex parents. The specific issues and concerns raised by each family type are outlined, followed by a discussion of key empirical findings regarding parenting and child adjustment. The chapter ends by drawing on research relating to children in these different family forms to examine the relative importance of family structure and family processes for children's socioemotional development. The implications for policy and practice, and directions for future research, are also discussed.

show abstract

Section: Single Mothers By Choicementioning

confidence: 99%

Socioemotional Development in Changing Families

Golombok

Tasker

2015

Handbook of Child Psychology and Developmental Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…and studies that focused on the parents' rather than the offspring's perspective. A total of 10 studies that fulfilled our inclusion criteria were reviewed (Beeson, Jennings, and Kramer 2011;Jadva et al 2009Jadva et al , 2010Hertz, Nelson, and Kramer 2013;Mahlstedt, LaBounty, and Kennedy 2010;Rodino, Burton, and Sanders 2011;Scheib, Riordan, and Rubin 2005;Turner and Coyle 2000;Brewaeys 2001, 2003).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As such, there is little information about the views of those who cannot be reached. Nonetheless, even from the data we have reviewed here (Mahlstedt, LaBounty, and Kennedy 2010;Scheib, Riordan, and Rubin 2005;Brewaeys 2001, 2003), it is clear that not all DC offspring are in fact interested in more information about their donor. Moreover, a longitudinal perspective on DC offspring's experiences is lacking because the first generation of offspring within open-identity donation policies is still relatively young (except for Sweden, but to our knowledge no Swedish data on the psychological and social effects of openidentity donation on offspring is available).…”

Section: Relation Between These Reasons and Providing The Donor's Idementioning

confidence: 99%

“…In a study of adolescent offspring with open-identity donors (n=29), Scheib, Riordan, and Rubin (2005) found that 86 percent of the participants were curious about their donor, commonly wanting more information about "what the donor is like" in terms of character traits (83 percent) or appearance (41 percent). Others had questions about his family, whether they share any type (s) of resemblance with the donor, questions pertaining to his health and reasons for donating, and whether he ever thinks about and/or is open to meeting his DC offspring.…”

Section: Reasons For Wanting To Know the Identity Of One's Sperm Donormentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Open-Identity Sperm Donation: How Does Offering Donor-Identifying Information Relate to Donor-Conceived Offspring’s Wishes and Needs?

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Over the past years, a growing number of countries have legislated open-identity donation, in which donor-conceived offspring are given access to the donor's identity once the child has reached maturity. It is held that donor anonymity creates identity problems for such children similar to the "genealogical bewilderment" described within the adoption context. The study of the social and psychological effects of open-identity donation is still very much in its infancy, but what has been left unquestioned is whether (and to what extent) offering access to the donor's name and address is an adequate response to such effects. This study has two goals: First, we aim to provide a systematic review of the reasons why donor-conceived (DC) offspring want to know the identity of their sperm donor. Second, we examine to what extent the provision of donoridentifying information can satisfy the reasons mentioned. The most important motivations appear to be: (1) to avoid medical risks and consanguineous relationships; (2) to satisfy curiosity; (3) to learn more about the self or to complete one's identity; (4) to learn more about what kind of person the donor is (biographical information, why he donated, etc.); (5) to form a relationship with the donor and/or his family; and (6) to learn about one's ancestry/genealogy. Our analysis shows that for nearly all of these reasons access to the donor's identity is not necessary. In those cases where it is, moreover, donor identification is not sufficient. What is really needed is (extended) contact with the donor, rather than the mere provision of his name.

show abstract

“…The interest among donor-conceived individuals in seeking information about donor conception and/or contact with those genetically related through donor conception seems driven by curiosity, a need for identity completion or related psychological and social matters, or a belief in the right to information (van den Akker 2015; Blyth et al, 2012;Blyth, 2012a;Hertz et al, 2013;Jadva et al, 2010;Nelson et al, 2013;Scheib et al, 2005) and/or a desire for medical information (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2004;Donor Sibling Registry, 2015;Parliament of Victoria Law Reform Committee, 2012;Ravitsky, 2012;Tomazin, 2013). There is also growing evidence that donors may wish to know more about the outcome of their donations and about any offspring (Daniels and Kramer, 2013;Goedeke et al, 2015;Kirkman et al, 2014;Riggs and Scholz, 2011;Speirs, 2012).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%