Donor conceived offspring conceive of the donor: The relevance of age, awareness, and family form

Hertz, Rosanna; Nelson, Margaret K.; Kramer, Wendy

doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2013.03.001

Cited by 57 publications

(77 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…While previous research has established that age at disclosure is important for perceptions of the donor and donor conception (Jadva et al ., 2009, 2010; Hertz et al ., 2013), the majority of children interviewed were told about their donor conception at an early age. However, it is noteworthy that more of the younger children referred to the donor as a social parent than did those who were older, perhaps because younger children may be more likely to understand family relationships on the basis of frequency of contact (Perlesz et al ., 2006) than are older children.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Children's thoughts and feelings about their donor and security of attachment to their solo mothers in middle childhood

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

STUDY QUESTIONWhat is the relationship between children's thoughts and feelings about their donor and their security of attachment to their solo mothers in middle childhood?SUMMARY ANSWERChildren with higher levels of secure–autonomous attachment to their mothers were more likely to have positive perceptions of the donor, and those with higher levels of insecure–disorganized attachment to their mothers were more likely to perceive him negatively.WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADYThere is limited understanding of the factors that contribute to children's thoughts and feelings about their donor in solo mother families. In adolescence, an association was found between adolescents’ curiosity about donor conception and their security of attachment to their mothers.STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION19 children were administered the Friends and Family Interview and Donor Conception Interview between December 2015 and March 2016 as part of the second phase of a longitudinal, multi-method, multi-informant study of solo mother families.PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODSAll children were aged between 7 and 13 years and had been conceived by donor insemination to solo mothers. Interviews were conducted in participants’ homes. The Friends and Family Interview was rated according to a standardized coding scheme designed to measure security of attachment in terms of secure–autonomous, insecure–dismissing, insecure–preoccupied and insecure–disorganized attachment patterns. Quantitative analyses of the Donor Conception Interview yielded two factors: interest in the donor and perceptions of the donor. Qualitative analyses of the Donor Conception Interview were conducted using qualitative content analysis and thematic analysis.MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCEStatistically significant associations were found between the perception of the donor scale and the secure–autonomous and insecure–disorganized attachment ratings. Children with higher levels of secure–autonomous attachment to their mothers were more likely to have positive perceptions of the donor (r = 0.549, P = 0.015), and those with higher levels of insecure–disorganized attachment to their mothers were more likely to perceive him negatively (r = −0.632, P = 0.004). Children's narratives about the donor depicted him as a stranger (n = 8), a biological father (n = 4), a social parent (n = 3), or in ambivalent terms (n = 4).LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTIONFindings are limited by the wide age range of children within a small overall sample size. Participants were those willing and able to take part in research on donor conception families. The statistical significance of correlation coefficients was not corrected for multiple comparisons.WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGSFindings highlight the importance of situating children's ideas about the donor within family contexts. It is recommended that those working with donor conception families consider this when advising parents about whether, what and how to tell children about donor conception.STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)Th...

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Children's thoughts and feelings about their donor and security of attachment to their solo mothers in middle childhood

et al. 2017

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%

“…In a recent publication, Hertz, Nelson, and Kramer (2013) reported their findings after analysing the responses of 314 DC offspring, aged 13 or older, from both heterosexual and lesbian two-parent families. They found that 83 percent of the respondents wanted to contact the donor; 38 percent of this group wanted to have a relationship with him; and more than half wanted to be known by the donor.…”

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

confidence: 99%

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

“…With that in mind, a growing body of psychosocial research indicates the potential complexity of managing new relationships and contacts following the 'matching' of genetically related parties, be that between donors and offspring, 'donor siblings', or parents whose children were conceived using the same donors (Blyth, 2012a;Freeman et al, 2009;Hertz and Mattes, 2011;Hertz et al, 2013;Jadva et al, 2010Jadva et al, , 2011Kirkman et al, 2014;Kramer and Cahn, 2013;Scheib and Ruby, 2009).…”

Section: Psychosocial Considerationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evolving minimum standards in responsible international sperm donor offspring quota

Janssens

Thorn²,

Castilla

et al. 2015

Reproductive BioMedicine Online

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An international working group was established with the aim of making recommendations on the number of offspring for a sperm donor that should be allowable in cases of international use of his sperm. Considerations from genetic, psychosocial, operational and ethical points of view were debated. For these considerations, it was assumed that current developments in genetic testing and Internet possibilities mean that, now, all donors are potentially identifiable by their offspring, so no distinction was made between anonymous and non-anonymous donation. Genetic considerations did not lead to restrictive limits (indicating that up to 200 offspring or more per donor may be acceptable except in isolated social-minority situations). Psychosocial considerations on the other hand led to proposals of rather restrictive limits (10 families per donor or less). Operational and ethical considerations did not lead to more or less concrete limits per donor, but seemed to lie in-between those resulting from the aforementioned ways of viewing the issue. In the end, no unifying agreed figure could be reached; however the consensus was that the number should never exceed 100 families. The conclusions of the group are summarized in three recommendations.

show abstract

Donor conceived offspring conceive of the donor: The relevance of age, awareness, and family form

Cited by 57 publications

References 31 publications

Children's thoughts and feelings about their donor and security of attachment to their solo mothers in middle childhood

Children's thoughts and feelings about their donor and security of attachment to their solo mothers in middle childhood

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

Evolving minimum standards in responsible international sperm donor offspring quota

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About