Literature DB >> 28108866

Donor Conception and "Passing," or; Why Australian Parents of Donor-Conceived Children Want Donors Who Look Like Them.

Karen-Anne Wong1.   

Abstract

This article explores the processes through which Australian recipients select unknown donors for use in assisted reproductive technologies and speculates on how those processes may affect the future life of the donor-conceived person. I will suggest that trust is an integral part of the exchange between donors, recipients, and gamete agencies in donor conception and heavily informs concepts of relatedness, race, ethnicity, kinship, class, and visibility. The decision to be transparent (or not) about a child's genetic parentage affects recipient parents' choices of donor, about who is allowed to "know" children's genetic backgrounds, and how important it is to be able to "pass" as an unassisted conception. In this way, recipients must trust the process, institutions, and individuals involved in their treatment, as well as place trust in the future they imagine for their child. The current market for donor gametes reproduces normative conceptions of the nuclear family, kinship, and relatedness by facilitating "matching" donors to recipients by phenotype and cultural affinities. Recipient parents who choose not to prioritize "matching," and actively disclose the process of children's conceptions, may embark on a project of queering heteronormative family structures and place great trust in both their own children and changing social attitudes to reduce stigma and generate acceptance for non-traditional families.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Assisted reproduction; Childhood; Donor conception; Family; Kinship

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28108866     DOI: 10.1007/s11673-016-9755-8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Bioeth Inq        ISSN: 1176-7529            Impact factor:   1.352


  8 in total

1.  Biomedicalizing kinship: sperm banks and the creation of affinity-ties.

Authors:  Laura Mamo
Journal:  Sci Cult (Lond)       Date:  2005-09

2.  Donor information considered important to donors, recipients and offspring: an Australian perspective.

Authors:  I S Rodino; P J Burton; K A Sanders
Journal:  Reprod Biomed Online       Date:  2010-11-20       Impact factor: 3.828

3.  Resemblance talk: a challenge for parents whose children were conceived with donor gametes in the US.

Authors:  Gay Becker; Anneliese Butler; Robert D Nachtigall
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  2005-03-23       Impact factor: 4.634

4.  Disclosure decisions among pregnant women who received donor oocytes: a phenomenological study.

Authors:  Patricia Hershberger; Susan C Klock; Randall B Barnes
Journal:  Fertil Steril       Date:  2006-11-13       Impact factor: 7.329

Review 5.  Open-Identity Sperm Donation: How Does Offering Donor-Identifying Information Relate to Donor-Conceived Offspring's Wishes and Needs?

Authors:  An Ravelingien; Veerle Provoost; Guido Pennings
Journal:  J Bioeth Inq       Date:  2014-07-05       Impact factor: 1.352

6.  Keeping a child's donor sperm conception secret is not linked to family and child functioning during middle childhood: An Australian comparative study.

Authors:  Gabor Thomas Kovacs; Sarah Wise; Sue Finch
Journal:  Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol       Date:  2015-07-30       Impact factor: 2.100

7.  Donor Conception Disclosure: Directive or Non-Directive Counselling?

Authors:  Inez Raes; An Ravelingien; Guido Pennings
Journal:  J Bioeth Inq       Date:  2016-04-26       Impact factor: 1.352

8.  Conceptualising a child-centric paradigm : do we have freedom of choice in donor conception reproduction?

Authors:  Damian H Adams
Journal:  J Bioeth Inq       Date:  2013-06-19       Impact factor: 1.352

  8 in total
  3 in total

1.  Prestidigitation vs. Public Trust: Or How We Can Learn to Change the Conversation and Prevent Powers From "Organizing the Discontent".

Authors:  Leigh E Rich
Journal:  J Bioeth Inq       Date:  2017-02-15       Impact factor: 1.352

2.  Rearranging Deck Chairs on a Sinking Ship? : Some Reflections on Ethics and Reproduction Looking Back at 2017 and Ahead at 2018.

Authors:  Silvia Camporesi
Journal:  J Bioeth Inq       Date:  2018-01-26       Impact factor: 1.352

3.  Investigating Public trust in Expert Knowledge: Narrative, Ethics, and Engagement.

Authors:  Silvia Camporesi; Maria Vaccarella; Mark Davis
Journal:  J Bioeth Inq       Date:  2017-01-31       Impact factor: 1.352

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.