Your ADS Text
V. Jadva1,*, T. Freeman1, W. Kramer2 and S. Golombok11Centre for Family Research, Faculty of Politics, Psychology, Sociology and International Studies, Free School Lane, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 3RF, UK 2Donor Sibling Registry, PO Box 1571, Nederland, CO 80466, USA *Correspondence address. Fax: +44-1223-330574; E-mail: vj227{at}cam.ac.ukReceived July 15, 2010. Revision received November 19, 2010. Accepted November 26, 2010. BACKGROUND This study examined the motivations and experiences of anonymous donors who decide to make themselves open to contact with their donor offspring. METHODS Online questionnaires were completed by 63 sperm donors and 11 oocyte donors recruited via the Donor Sibling Registry (http://www.donorsiblingregistry.com/), a US-based international registry that facilitates contact between donor-conceived offspring and their donors. RESULTS Donors' main reasons for donating were financial payment and wanting to help others. Sperm donors had donated between 1 and 950 times (median = 100) and oocyte donors had donated between 1 and 5 times (median = 2). The majority of sperm donors and more than one-third of oocyte donors expressed concerns about having donated. These concerns were mainly about the well-being of any children conceived using their gametes and not being able to make contact with them. Most sperm and oocyte donors felt that it was important to know how many offspring had been born using their donation, and 51% of sperm donors and 46% of oocyte donors wanted identifying information. All of the donors who had contact with their donor offspring reported positive experiences and the majority continued to have regular contact. CONCLUSIONS Although the sample may not be representative of all anonymous donors, this study highlights the importance of donors having access to information about their donor offspring and the positive consequences that may arise when contact is made. © The Author 2010. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com This ArticleHum. Reprod. (2011) 26 (3): 638-645. doi: 10.1093/humrep/deq364 First published online: December 21, 2010
Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.
View the original article here
No comments:
Post a Comment