LOGIN TO YOUR ACCOUNT

Username
Password
Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Or use your Academic/Social account:

Congratulations!

You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.

Important!

Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Name:
Username:
Password:
Verify Password:
E-mail:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
MacCallum, Fiona; Golombok, Susan
Publisher: Oxford University Press
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects: BF
BACKGROUND: Previous data suggest that parents who adopt a child tend to support full disclosure while donor conception families prefer to keep the method of conception relatively private. It is not known whether parents in embryo donation families will tend towards the adoption model, therefore, we studied families with a child conceived using donated embryos. \ud METHODS: A total of 21 embryo donation families with a child aged 2–5 years were recruited through UK fertility clinics. Mothers were administered a standardized semi-structured interview, obtaining data on the extent of their disclosure to children and other family members and their reasons for this decision. \ud RESULTS: At the time of interview, 9% of mothers had told their child how they had conceived; 24% of mothers reported that they were planning to tell the child in future; 43% had decided that they would never tell the child, and the remaining 24% were undecided. However, nearly three-quarter of mothers (72%) had disclosed to other family members. Maternal grandparents were more likely to have been told than paternal grandparents (P < 0.025). Reasons cited for non-disclosure to the child included the desire to protect the child, the belief that disclosure is unnecessary, and the concern that family relationships would be damaged. Reasons in favour of disclosure included the desire to avoid accidental disclosure and the belief that the child has the right to know. \ud CONCLUSIONS: Embryo donation mothers were similar to parents of donor insemination and oocyte donation children in their attitudes towards disclosure of donor conception. \ud \ud
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • anonymity and the emotional adjustment of their children. Hum Reprod 12, 1591-1597.
    • Brodzinsky D and Pinderhughes E (2002) Parenting and child development in adoptive families. In Bornstein M (ed.), Handbook of Parenting, vol 1. Mahwah, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 279-311.
    • Brodzinsky D, Smith DW and Brodzinsky AB (1998) Children's adjustment to adoption. Developmental and clinical issues. Sage Publications, London
    • Burrell R (2005) Assisted Reproduction in the Nordic Countries. Nordic Committee on Bioethics. Retrieved June 10, 2007 from http://www.ncbio.org
    • Clamar A (1989) Psychological implications of the anonymous pregnancy. In Offerman-Zuckerberg J (ed.), Gender in transition: a new frontier. New York and London, Plenum medical book company, pp.111-112.
    • Cook R, Golombok S, Bish A and Murray C (1995) Disclosure of donor insemination: Parental attitudes. Am J Orthopsychiatry 65, 549-559.
    • Daniels K and Taylor K (1993) Secrecy and openness in donor insemination. Politics Life Sci 12, 155-170.
    • Daniels KR (1995) Information sharing in donor insemination: A conflict of rights and needs. Cam Q of Healthc Ethic 4, 217-224.
    • Donor Conception Network (2006). Telling and Talking. from www.dcnetwork.org
    • Erikson EH (1968) Identity: Youth and Crisis. Norton, New York
    • Gibbs GR (2002) Qualitative Data Analysis: Explorations with NVIVO. McGraw-Hill Education, Maidenhead, UK
    • Gollancz D (2001) Donor insemination: A question of rights. Hum Fertil 4, 164-167.
    • MacCallum F, Golombok S and Brinsden P (2007) Parenting and child development in families with a child conceived through embryo donation. J Fam Psychol, in press.
    • Mahlstedt P and Greenfeld D (1989) Assisted reproductive technology with donor gametes: the need for patient preparation. Fertil Steril 52, 908-914.
    • McGee G, Brakman S and Gurmankin AD (2001) Disclosure to children conceived with donor gametes should not be optional. Hum Reprod 6, 2033-2036.
    • McWhinnie A (2001) Should offspring from donated gametes continue to be denied knowledge of their origins and antecedents? Hum Reprod 16, 807-817.
    • Murray C and Golombok S (2003) To tell or not to tell: The decision-making process of egg donation parents. Hum Fertil 6, 89-95.
    • Murray C, MacCallum F and Golombok S (2006) Egg donation parents and their children: follow-up at age 12 years. Fertil Steril 85, 610-618
    • Nachtigall RD, Pitcher L, Tschann JM, Becker G and Szkupinski Quiroga S (1997) Stigma, disclosure and family functioning among parents of children concieved through donor insemination. Fertil Steril 68, 83-89.
    • Papp P (1993) The worm in the bud: Secrets between parents and children. In ImberBlack E (ed.), Secrets in families and family therapy. Norton, New York, pp 66-85.
    • Patrizio P, Mastroianni AC and Mastroianni L (2001) Disclosure to children conceived with donor gametes should be optional. Hum Reprod 16, 2033- 2036.
    • Pennings G (1997) The double track policy for donor anonymity. Hum Reprod 12, 2839-2844.
    • Rumball A and Adair V (1999) Telling the story: Parents' scripts for donor offspring. Hum Reprod 14, 1392-1399.
    • Scheib J, Riordan M and Rubin S (2003) Choosing identity-release sperm donors: The parents' perspective 13-18 years later. Hum Reprod 18, 1115-1127.
    • Shenfield F and Steele SJ (1997) What are the effects of anonymity and secrecy on the welfare of the child in gamete donation? Hum Reprod 12, 392-395.
    • Snowden R and Mitchell GD (1981) The Artificial Family. George Allen & Unwin, London
    • Snowden R, Mitchell GD and Snowden EM (1983) Artificial Reproduction: A social investigation. George Allen & Unwin, London
    • Soderstrom-Antilla V, Foudila T, Ripatti U and Siegberg R (2001) Embryo donation: outcome and attitudes among embryo donors and recipients. Hum Reprod 16, 1120-1128.
    • Triseliotis J (1973) In Search of Origins: The experiences of adopted people. Routledge & Kegan Paul, London
    • Trounson A, Leeton J, Besanka M, Wood C and Conti A (1983) Pregnancy established in an infertile patient after transfer of a donated embryo fertilized in vitro. Br Med J 286, 835-838.
    • Turner AJ and Coyle A (2000) 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 15, 2041-2051.
    • Walker I and Broderick P (1999) The psychology of assisted reproduction - or psychology assisting its reproduction. Aust Psychol 34, 38-44.
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article