A Lalos1, C Gottlieb, O Lalos. 1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospital, Umeå, Sweden. ann.lalos@obgyn.umu.se
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In Sweden, a child born as a result of donor insemination (DI) has the right to receive information both about the DI and the identity of the donor. The present study aimed to elucidate parents' thoughts regarding these possibilities, and whether, how and when they had told their offspring about the DI. An additional aim was to examine the parents' experiences of the attitudes of healthcare providers. METHODS: A follow-up study using semi-structured telephone interviews with 19 couples, including 19 women and 17 men. RESULTS: More than half of the parents (61%) had told all their child/ren about the DI, but almost everyone had told another person. Mean age for disclosure was 5 years for the first child. Reasons given for disclosure were to avoid accidental discovery, a desire for openness and a persons' fundamental right to know his/her genetic origin. Parents who did not intend to tell their child/ren considered DI a private matter and were afraid of other people's attitudes. Sixty-one percent of the parents had not yet told their children about the possibility of identifying the donor. Healthcare staff had impacted on the parents' thinking, and a majority of those who had been encouraged to tell their child/ren about the DI had done so. CONCLUSIONS: There was a discrepancy between the intentions of the legislation and how parents act in relation to them. To improve compliance, it is crucial to organize education, support and ethical discussion among professionals, and to offer parents, and parents-to-be, counselling, support and group sessions with other DI families.
BACKGROUND: In Sweden, a child born as a result of donor insemination (DI) has the right to receive information both about the DI and the identity of the donor. The present study aimed to elucidate parents' thoughts regarding these possibilities, and whether, how and when they had told their offspring about the DI. An additional aim was to examine the parents' experiences of the attitudes of healthcare providers. METHODS: A follow-up study using semi-structured telephone interviews with 19 couples, including 19 women and 17 men. RESULTS: More than half of the parents (61%) had told all their child/ren about the DI, but almost everyone had told another person. Mean age for disclosure was 5 years for the first child. Reasons given for disclosure were to avoid accidental discovery, a desire for openness and a persons' fundamental right to know his/her genetic origin. Parents who did not intend to tell their child/ren considered DI a private matter and were afraid of other people's attitudes. Sixty-one percent of the parents had not yet told their children about the possibility of identifying the donor. Healthcare staff had impacted on the parents' thinking, and a majority of those who had been encouraged to tell their child/ren about the DI had done so. CONCLUSIONS: There was a discrepancy between the intentions of the legislation and how parents act in relation to them. To improve compliance, it is crucial to organize education, support and ethical discussion among professionals, and to offer parents, and parents-to-be, counselling, support and group sessions with other DI families.