A Brewaeys1, J K de Bruyn, L A Louwe, F M Helmerhorst. 1. Department of Gynaecology and Reproductive Medicine, Leiden University Medical Center, Post Box 9600, 2300 RC Leiden, The Netherlands. a.m.a.brewaeys@lumc.nl
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aim of the present study was to gain insight into parents' own donor preferences within a system offering the choice between an anonymous and identity-registered donor. A comparison was made between recipients choosing for an anonymous donor (AD choosers) and those choosing for an identifiable donor (ID choosers) with regard to their sexual orientation, demographic characteristics, disclosure issues and infertility distress. METHODS: Data from 105 couples (61% heterosexual, 39% lesbian) were registered on a standardized form during implication counselling sessions previous to treatment. RESULTS: Sixty-three per cent of the heterosexual couples and 98% of the lesbian couples had chosen an ID donor. Major differences between ID and AD choosers were identified. Among the ID choosers secrecy towards the child was no option, whereas 83% of the AD choosers did not intend to inform their child. Compared with heterosexual ID choosers, AD choosers were more distressed about their infertility and had a lower educational level. CONCLUSION: Legislation imposing ID donors appears to be acceptable for the majority of this study population. For a vulnerable group of heterosexual couples, who remained secretive about the use of a donor, adaptation to the new system is not self-evident.
BACKGROUND: The aim of the present study was to gain insight into parents' own donor preferences within a system offering the choice between an anonymous and identity-registered donor. A comparison was made between recipients choosing for an anonymous donor (AD choosers) and those choosing for an identifiable donor (ID choosers) with regard to their sexual orientation, demographic characteristics, disclosure issues and infertility distress. METHODS: Data from 105 couples (61% heterosexual, 39% lesbian) were registered on a standardized form during implication counselling sessions previous to treatment. RESULTS: Sixty-three per cent of the heterosexual couples and 98% of the lesbian couples had chosen an ID donor. Major differences between ID and AD choosers were identified. Among the ID choosers secrecy towards the child was no option, whereas 83% of the AD choosers did not intend to inform their child. Compared with heterosexual ID choosers, AD choosers were more distressed about their infertility and had a lower educational level. CONCLUSION: Legislation imposing ID donors appears to be acceptable for the majority of this study population. For a vulnerable group of heterosexual couples, who remained secretive about the use of a donor, adaptation to the new system is not self-evident.
Entities:
Keywords:
Empirical Approach; Genetics and Reproduction