Fertility and Sterility
Volume 93, Issue 7 , Pages 2236-2246, 1 May 2010

The views of adult offspring of sperm donation: essential feedback for the development of ethical guidelines within the practice of assisted reproductive technology in the United States

  • Patricia P. Mahlstedt, Ed.D.

      Affiliations

    • Private practice, Houston, Texas
    • Corresponding Author InformationReprint requests: Patricia P. Mahlstedt, Ed.D., 4200 South Shepherd, Suite 250, Houston, TX 77098 (FAX: 713-524-9965).
  • ,
  • Kathleen LaBounty, B.A.

      Affiliations

    • Department of Psychology, Houston Baptist University, Houston, Texas
  • ,
  • William Thomas Kennedy, Ed.D.

      Affiliations

    • Department of Psychology, Houston Baptist University, Houston, Texas

Received 24 June 2008; received in revised form 1 December 2008; accepted 22 December 2008. published online 16 March 2009.

Objective

To provide an in-depth analysis of offspring attitudes toward their means of conception and the practice of sperm donation in the United States.

Design

Survey-based study using a 46-item questionnaire.

Patient(s)

Eighty-five adult offspring of sperm donation.

Intervention(s)

Participants were recruited through an Internet-based support group for adults conceived through sperm donation. Eighty-five of them completed the questionnaire provided through a link to another Internet site.

Main Outcome Measure(s)

Responses to a 46-item questionnaire.

Result(s)

A majority of offspring learned of their conception at age >18 years during a planned conversation; had no information about their donor; viewed their donor as their “biological father”; had searched for and wanted identifying information on their donor and half-siblings; and supported the provision of extensive nonidentifying information or identity release in the practice of sperm donation. Participant attitudes toward their means of conception were evenly distributed from “very good” to “very bad.” Other descriptive information on participants contributed to an understanding of their attitudes.

Conclusion(s)

Participant ratings of their conception were evenly distributed from “very good” to “very bad.” Most believed that identifying information should be provided to recipients and that they themselves would not participate in the practice of gamete donation.

Key Words: Donor insemination, disclosure, adult donor offspring, identity-release gamete donation, parent education, donor anonymity, secrecy

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 31.50 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

 P.P.M. has nothing to disclose. K.L. has nothing to disclose. W.T.K. has nothing to disclose.

PII: S0015-0282(08)04835-8

doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2008.12.119

Fertility and Sterility
Volume 93, Issue 7 , Pages 2236-2246, 1 May 2010