Family communication about donor conception : a qualitative study with lesbian parents

In this qualitative study of 10 lesbian couples who built their families through anonymous donor conception, we explore how lesbian parents experience communication about the donor conception within the family. While for these families disclosure of donor conception is often seen as evident, the way parents and children discuss this subject and how this is experienced by the parents themselves has not received much research attention. To meet this gap in the literature, in-depth interviews with lesbian couples were conducted. An Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis showed that this family communication process can be understood within the broader relational context of parent-child relationships. Even though parents handled this family communication in many different ways, these were all inspired by the same motives: acting in the child's best interest andon a more implicit levelmaintaining good relations within the family. Furthermore, parents left the initiative for talking about the DC mostly to the child. Overall, parents aimed at constructing a donor conception narrative that they considered acceptable for both the children and themselves. They used different strategies, such as gradual disclosure, limiting the meaning of the donor, and justifying the donor conception. Building an acceptable donor conception narrative was sometimes challenged by influences from the social environment. In the discussion, we relate this qualitative systemic study to the broader issues of selective disclosure and bidirectionality within families

Sister-to-sister oocyte donation: couples’ experiences with regard to genetic ties

Objective: This study aimed to gain an in-depth understanding of the experiences of genetic ties in intrafamily oocyte donation families. Background: Previous research has shown that most mothers have a good and stable relationship with their donor. Little is known about the meaning of the difference in genetic ties for parents who conceived through sister-to-sister oocyte donation. Methods: An Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis was performed and focused on both individual experiences and couple experiences with regard to genetic ties. Ten participants were recruited via an infertility clinic and took part in semistructured couple interviews. Results: Our analysis revealed that the donation was seen as a way to equal genetic parenthood. Participants struggled with this prevailing ideal of genetic parenthood and questioned the legitimacy of their motherhood. Several dynamics were identified when couples tried to deal with the imbalance in genetic ties: they acknowledged each other, convinced one another, or pushed away the difference in genetic ties. Couples also managed the presence of a genetic tie with the donor by negotiating the closeness in their family relationships. Conclusion: The lack of a full genetic tie remained a meaningful absence for some mothers and the way couples dealt with this varied. We plead that the option of post-donation care should be offered to support couples with the complexities they try to deal with

Constructing and enacting kinship in sister-to-sister egg donation families : a multi-family member interview study

Although intra-familial egg donation has been practiced for more than 15 years in several countries, little is known about family relationships in this family type. Framed within the new kinship studies, this article focuses on the experiential dimension of kinship in sister-to-sister egg donation families: how is kinship unpacked' and reconstructed' in this specific family constellation? Qualitative data analysis of interviews with receiving parents, their donating sisters and the donor children revealed six themes: (1) being connected as an extended family; (2)disambiguating motherhood; (3) giving and receiving as structuring processes; (4) acknowledging and managing the special' link between donor and child; (5)making sense of the union between father and donor; and (6) kinship constructions being challenged. This study showed the complex and continuous balancing of meanings related to the mother-child dyad, the donor-child dyad and the donor-father dyad. What stood out was the complexity of, on the one hand cherishing the genetic link with the child allowed by the sisters' egg donation, while, on the other, managing the meanings related to this link, by, for instance, acknowledging, downsizing, symbolising, and differentiating it from the mother-child bond. (A Virtual Abstract of this paper can be accessed at: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_979cmCmR9rLrKuD7z0ycA)

Variation in genomic islands contribute to genome plasticity in cupriavidus metallidurans

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Different <it>Cupriavidus metallidurans </it>strains isolated from metal-contaminated and other anthropogenic environments were genotypically and phenotypically compared with <it>C. metallidurans </it>type strain CH34. The latter is well-studied for its resistance to a wide range of metals, which is carried for a substantial part by its two megaplasmids pMOL28 and pMOL30.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Comparative genomic hybridization (CGH) indicated that the extensive arsenal of determinants involved in metal resistance was well conserved among the different <it>C. metallidurans </it>strains. Contrary, the mobile genetic elements identified in type strain CH34 were not present in all strains but clearly showed a pattern, although, not directly related to a particular biotope nor location (geographical). One group of strains carried almost all mobile genetic elements, while these were much less abundant in the second group. This occurrence was also reflected in their ability to degrade toluene and grow autotrophically on hydrogen gas and carbon dioxide, which are two traits linked to separate genomic islands of the Tn<it>4371</it>-family. In addition, the clear pattern of genomic islands distribution allowed to identify new putative genomic islands on chromosome 1 and 2 of <it>C. metallidurans </it>CH34.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Metal resistance determinants are shared by all <it>C. metallidurans </it>strains and their occurrence is apparently irrespective of the strain's isolation type and place. <it>Cupriavidus metallidurans </it>strains do display substantial differences in the diversity and size of their mobile gene pool, which may be extensive in some (including the type strain) while marginal in others.</p

‘No daddy’, ‘A kind of daddy’ : words used by donor conceived children and (aspiring) parents to refer to the sperm donor

Research has shown that the recipients of donor sperm can experience difficulties finding appropriate language to refer to the donor. Based on two qualitative analysis techniques, namely word count and empirical discourse analysis, we studied the words used to refer to the donor in heterosexual and lesbian (aspiring) parents and in donor conceived children. Findings show that the words used in these households are highly diverse and have at least four different interlinked functions: (1) to position the donor in relation to the nuclear family; (2) to safeguard the role of the social parent; (3) to clarify family structure; and (4) to present a positive picture of the donor. Both parents and children consciously reflect on what words to use to refer to the donor. Although parents try to keep words like father' and daddy' out of the family narrative, children use these words. These findings show that it is important for healthcare personnel and policy makers to reflect on the careful use of terminology when they address questions around sperm donation because the terminology invokes specific meanings that have an effect on how the recipients and their children perceive the role of the donor

The last vial : what it means to (aspiring) parents to use the same sperm donor for siblings

Introduction: A lot of attention has been given to the quest of parents, children and donors to find donor siblings (= half siblings who share the same donor gametes but who are born in different families). However, literature is scarce about the use of the same sperm donor for subsequent children in the same family. Methods: This study included 68 lesbian and heterosexual (aspiring) parents, recruited at the Department of Reproductive Medicine of Ghent University Hospital (Belgium). The in-depth semi-structured couple interviews were performed between October 2012 and October 2013. Data were analyzed through step-by-step inductive thematic analysis. Results: The couples showed a clear preference to use the same sperm donor for their children. The most common reasons for this preference were related to the family or sibling relationships and medical reasons. Uncertainty about the availability of the same donor over time seeped through in their stories. Most lesbian aspiring parents decided that both partners should have a genetic link with at least one child. Conclusion: The use of the same sperm donor for subsequent conceptions appeared quasi unambiguously in the interviews of the lesbian and heterosexual (aspiring) parents in our study