K Daniels1, E Blyth, M Crawshaw, R Curson. 1. Department of Social Work, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand. ken.daniels@canterbury.ac.nz
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The UK government has decided to introduce, from 2005, rules that will allow donor-conceived persons to have access to identifying information concerning their donor. This has led to many concerns regarding future gamete donor recruitment. METHODS: Semen donors who had been recruited between 1988 and 2002 were invited to take part in a telephone interview. The interview sought these previous donors' views on issues associated with recruitment, attitudes regarding information sharing and views concerning the offspring. Responses regarding information sharing were compared with their views recorded at the time of recruitment. RESULTS: All 32 donors were recruited altruistically. Eighteen (56%) held the same views concerning the provision of identifying information as they did at the time of recruitment. Of those who had changed their views, eight (25%) expressed a willingness to be more open and four (12%) now wished to be anonymous having previously been unsure. Half of the donors would still have donated if they had been required to be identified to offspring, one-quarter would not have and one-quarter were undecided, although the majority of these said they may have donated under an open system. CONCLUSION: The study shows that it is possible to recruit identifiable donors at this clinic and this suggests that it may be possible for other clinics to do likewise.
BACKGROUND: The UK government has decided to introduce, from 2005, rules that will allow donor-conceived persons to have access to identifying information concerning their donor. This has led to many concerns regarding future gamete donor recruitment. METHODS: Semen donors who had been recruited between 1988 and 2002 were invited to take part in a telephone interview. The interview sought these previous donors' views on issues associated with recruitment, attitudes regarding information sharing and views concerning the offspring. Responses regarding information sharing were compared with their views recorded at the time of recruitment. RESULTS: All 32 donors were recruited altruistically. Eighteen (56%) held the same views concerning the provision of identifying information as they did at the time of recruitment. Of those who had changed their views, eight (25%) expressed a willingness to be more open and four (12%) now wished to be anonymous having previously been unsure. Half of the donors would still have donated if they had been required to be identified to offspring, one-quarter would not have and one-quarter were undecided, although the majority of these said they may have donated under an open system. CONCLUSION: The study shows that it is possible to recruit identifiable donors at this clinic and this suggests that it may be possible for other clinics to do likewise.
Entities:
Keywords:
Empirical Approach; Genetics and Reproduction
Authors: Eric Scott Sills; Lyubov O Mykhaylyshyn; Ulyana S Dorofeyeva; David J Walsh; Umme Salma; Ahmed B Omar; Graham D Coull; Ileana A David; Kathy M Brickell; Olga M Tsar; Anthony Ph Walsh Journal: Reprod Health Date: 2010-08-11 Impact factor: 3.223