Skip to main content
Article thumbnail
Location of Repository

Donor insemination and the dilemma of the “unknown father”.

By Eric Blyth

Abstract

As has been the pattern worldwide, the provision of donor insemination (DI) - and\ud subsequently other forms of donor conception - in the UK has traditionally been\ud characterised by withholding the identities of donors and recipients and of donors\ud and their donor-conceived offspring from each other. Furthermore, recipients of\ud donor gametes were frequently advised not to tell anyone, including their children,\ud of their recourse to donor conception.1 Inter-related factors promoting such practices\ud include:\ud • the dubious legal and moral status of donor conception (including explicit\ud disapproval from several major world religions) – with consequent concerns\ud about the impact on the child and other family members if knowledge of\ud donor conception became “common knowledge”.2\ud • suspicions about sperm donors’ personality and motivation.3\ud • recipients’ ambivalence about the use of donor conception – especially DI.4\ud • uncertainties about the impact on the child of knowledge of the circumstances\ud of their conception (or assumptions that such knowledge would be\ud damaging).5\ud • uncertainties about the donor’s legal or financial responsibilities towards the\ud child and to protect them from unintended/undesired contact or responsibilities.\ud 6\ud • uncertain legal status of the child – and fears of prosecution/conviction for\ud falsification of birth registration information.7\ud • stigma associated with male infertility in particular and families desires - and\ud the opportunity - to “pass as normal”.8\ud • potential consequences of the parents’ imbalanced genetic relationship with\ud the child and fears of the child’s rejection of the non-genetic parent.9\ud • fears of unwanted intrusion by the donor in family affairs.10\ud • initial reliance on fresh sperm, requiring management of the geographical\ud and temporal proximity of donor and recipient.11\ud • parents’ uncertainties about the timing and method of telling their child and\ud the lack of information to give the child, making “not telling” – at least superficially\ud - an easier option.12\ud • physicians’ concerns about their potential exposure to critical external scrutiny,\ud including risk of claims of unprofessional/illegal practice.13\ud • need to maintain donor services in the face of the assumed adverse impact\ud of disclosure on supply.1

Topics: HQ, H1
Publisher: Universitätsverlag Göttingen
Year: 2008
OAI identifier: oai:eprints.hud.ac.uk:3626

Suggested articles


To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.