Fertility and Sterility
Volume 92, Issue 6 , Pages 1811-1817 , December 2009

Who's keeping count? The need for regulation is a relative matter

  • Neroli Sawyer, B.Sc. (Hons).

      Affiliations

    • Corresponding Author InformationReprint requests: Neroli Sawyer, B.Sc. (Hons), School of Behavioural and Social Sciences and Humanities, University of Ballarat, University Drive, Mount Helen, Ballarat, Victoria, 3353, Australia.

Received 12 May 2008 ,Revised 22 October 2008 ,Accepted 12 January 2009.

References 

  1. Jones H, Cohen J, Cooke I, Kempers R. IFFS surveillance 2007. Fertil Steril. 2007;87(Suppl 1):S1–S67
  2. Daniels K. Donor gametes: anonymous or identified?. Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2007;21:113–128
  3. Daniels K, Meadows L. Sharing information with adults conceived as a result of donor insemination. Hum Fertil. 2006;9:93–99
  4. Sylvester T. The case against sperm donor anonymity. New Haven, CT: Yale Law School; 2007;
  5. Lycett E, Daniels K, Golombok S. School-aged children of donor insemination: a study of parents' disclosure patterns. Human Reproduction. 2005;20:810–819
  6. Brewaeys A, Bruyn JK, Louwe lA, Helmerhorst FM. Anonymous or identity-registered sperm donors? A study of Dutch recipients' choices. Hum Reprod. 2005;20:820–824
  7. Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine; Practice Committee of the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology. 2006 Guidelines for gamete and embryo donation. Fertility and Sterility. 2006;86(Suppl 5):S38–S50
  8. Curie-Cohen M. The frequency of consanguineous matings due to multiple use of donors in artificial Insemination. Am J Hum Genet. 1980;32:589–600
  9. Wang C, Tsai M, Lee M, Huang S, Kao C, Ho H, et al. Maximum number of live births per donor in artificial insemination. Hum Reprod. 2007;22:1363–1372
  10. Daniels K. Recruiting gamete donors: response to Craft and Thornhill. Reprod Biomed Online. 2005;10:430–431
  11. Craft I, Thornhill A. Would ‘all-inclusive’ compensation attract more gamete donors to balance their loss of anonymity?. Reprod Biomed Online. 2005;10:301–306
  12. Craft I. Will removal of anonymity influence the recruitment of egg donors? A survey of past donors and recipients. Reprod Biomed Online. 2005;10:325–329
  13. Shenfield F. Too late for change, too early to judge, but an oxymoron will not solve the problem. Reprod Biomed Online. 2005;10:433–435
  14. Shenfield F, Steele SJ. A gift is a gift, or why gamete donors should not be paid. Hum Reprod. 1995;10:253–255
  15. Daniels K. To give or sell human gametes—the interplay between pragmatics, policy and ethics. J Med Ethics. 2000;26:206–211
  16. Cahn N. Necessary subjects: the need for a mandatory national donor gamete registry. DePaul J Health Care Law. 2008;
  17. Sawyer N, McDonald J. A review of mathematical models used to determine sperm donor limits for fertility treatment. Fertil Steril. 2008;90:265–271
  18. Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine; Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology. Revised minimum standards for practices offering assisted reproductive technologies. Fertil Steril. 2003;80:1556–1559
  19. Wright VC, Chang J, Jeng G, Chen M, Macaluso M. Assisted reproductive technology surveillance - United States, 2004. MMWR Surveill Summ. 2007;56:1–22
  20. Andrews L. The clone age: adventures in the new world of reproductive technology. New York: Henry Holt and Company; 1999;
  21. Ginsberg K. FDA approval? A critique of the artificial insemination industry in the United States. Univ Mich J Law Reform. 1997;30:825–851
  22. Audi T. Birmingham case raises question: do banks find out enough about donors?. Detroit Free Press; 2006;May 22
  23. Wolff J. The truth about donor 1084. Self. 2006;Available at http://www.self.comLast accessed 22 September, 2007
  24. Kramer W. Redefining family. The Donor Sibling Registry. 2000;Available at http://www.donorsiblingregistry.comLast accessed 22 September, 2007
  25. Harmon A. Are you my sperm donor? Few clinics will say. New York Times. 2006;January 20
  26. U.S. Congress Office of Technology Assessment. Artificial insemination: practice in the United States: summary of a 1987 survey—background paper, OTA-13P-BA-48. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office; 1988;
  27. Elster N. All or nothing? The international debate over disclosure to donor offspring. Biotechnology and the Human Future. 2006;http://www.thehumanfuture.org/commentaries/assistedreproductivetechnology/art_commentary_elsterol.htmlLast accessed 17 July, 2007
  28. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, American Society for Reproductive Medicine, Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology. 2004 assisted reproductive technology success rates. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2006;
  29. Basu S. Genetic privacy: resolving the conflict between the donor and the child. Curr Sci. 2004;86:1363–1365
  30. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2005 assisted reproductive technology success rates: national summary and fertility clinic success rates. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2007;
  31. DiLascia P. How many children?. SpermCenter. 2006;Available at www.spermcenter.comAccessed September 2007
  32. Daniels C, Golden J. Procreative compounds: popular eugenics, artificial insemination and the rise of the American sperm banking industry. (Industry overview). J Soc History. 2004;38
  33. Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Informing offspring of their conception by gamete donation. Fertil Steril. 2004;81:527–531
  34. Matorras R. Reproductive exile versus reproductive tourism. Hum Reprod. 2005;20:3571
  35. Spar D. Reproductive tourism and the regulatory map. N Engl J Med. 2005;325:531–533
  36. Sauer MV. Further restrictions on egg donation in the UK: two strikes and you're out!. Reprod Biomed Online. 2005;10:431–433
  37. Grace V, Daniels K, Gillett W. The donor, the father, and the imaginary constitution of the family: Parent's constructions in the case of donor insemination. Soc Sci Med. 2008;66:301–314
  38. van den Akker O. A review of family donor constructs: current research and future directions. Hum Reprod Update. 2006;12:91–101
  39. Daniels K, Feyles V, Nisker J, Perez-y-Perez M, Newton C, Parker J, et al. Sperm donation: implications of Canada's Assisted Human Reproduction Act 2004 for recipients, donors, health professionals, and institutions. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2006;28:608–615
  40. Tobin J. The Convention on the Rights of the Child: the rights and best interests of children conceived through assisted reproduction. Melbourne, Australia: Victorian Law Reform Commission; 2004;
  41. Shenfield F, Steele SJ. What are the effects of anonymity and secrecy on the welfare of the child in gamete donation. Hum Reprod. 1997;12:392–395
  42. Shenfield F. Privacy versus disclosure in gamete donation: a clash of interest, of duties, or an exercise in responsibility?. J Assist Reprod Genet. 1997;14:371–373
  43. Pennings G. Commentary on Craft and Thornhill: new ethical strategies to recruit gamete donors. Reprod Biomed Online. 2005;10:307–309
  44. Nicholson A. Children's rights in the context of infertility treatment. In: Symposium ITAOD, editor. What About Me? The best interests of the child; 2006; Treetops Room, Museum of Victoria, Carlton Gardens, Nicholson Street, Carlton, Melbourne; 2006.
  45. Hodgkin R, Newell P. Implementation handbook for the convention on the rights of the child: fully revised third edition. UNICEF, Geneva,. 2007;
  46. Stern J, Cramer C, Green R, Garrot A, DeVries K. Determining access to assisted reproduction technology: reactions of clinic directors to ethically complex case scenarios. Hum Reprod. 2003;18:1343–1352
  47. Blyth E, Frith L. The UK's gamete ‘crisis' - a critical analysis. Critical Social Policy. 2008;28:74–95
  48. Blyth E. Donor assisted conception and donor offspring rights to genetic origins information. Int J Children's Rights. 1998;6:237–253
  49. McWhinnie A. Debate on gamete donation and anonymity: should offspring from donated gametes continue to be denied knowledge of their origins and antecedents?. Hum Reprod. 2001;16:807–817
  50. McGee G, Brakman S, Gurmankin AD. Debate-continued: Gamete donation and anonymity—disclosure to children conceived with donor gametes should not be optional. Hum Reprod. 2001;16:2033–2038
  51. Daniels KR. Artificial insemination using donor semen and the issue of secrecy: the views of donors and recipient couples. Soc Sci Med. 1988;27:377–383
  52. UNICEF. Convention on the Rights of the Child. 2002. http://www.unicef.org/acc/index_30177.html. Last accessed 8 July, 2008.
  53. Johnson M. Escaping the tyranny of the embryo? A new approach to ART regulation based on UK and Australian experiences. Hum Reprod. 2006;21:2756–2765
  54. Streisand B. Who's your daddy?: U.S. News and World Report 2006; May 2.
  55. Allen-Milles T. Hi there, I'm your sperm donor sis. The Sunday Times. 2006;March 5
  56. CBS News. Sperm donor siblings find family ties. In: United States. CBS Broadcasting, 2007.
  57. Shanley M. Collaboration and commodification in assisted procreation: reflections on an open market and anonymous donations in human sperm and eggs. Law Soc Rev. 2002;36:257–284
  58. Baines J. Gamete donors and mistaken identities: the importance of genetic awareness and proposals favoring donor identity disclosure for children born from gamete donations in the United States. Family Court Review. 2007;45:116–132
  59. Frith L. Gamete donation and anonymity: the ethical and legal debate. Hum Fertil. 2001;16:818–824
  60. Anderson K. How well does peternity confidence match actual paternity? Evidence from worldwide nonpaternity rates. Curr Anthropol. 2006;43:511–518
  61. Breastcancer.org Your Genetic Makeup. Day-to-Day Matters. 2007;
  62. Blyth E. Information on genetic origins in donor-assisted conception: is knowing who you are a human rights issue?. Hum Fertil. 2002;5:185–192
  63. D'Orazio P. Half of the family tree: a call for access to a full genetic history for children born by artificial insemination. Health Biomed Law. 2006;2
  64. Sants H. Genealogical bewilderment in children with substitute parents. Br J Med Psych. 1964;37:133–141
  65. Blamire J. Definition: genotype. In: Science at a distance. New York: Brooklyn College; 2000;
  66. Encyclopaedia Britannica. Definition: genotype. In: Biology: Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc.
  67. McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia of Science and Technology, 5th ed. Human Genetics. In: Sci-Tech Encyclopedia. McGraw-Hill.
  68. Lerner R. Nature, nurture, and dynamic interactionism. Hum Dev. 1978;21:1–20
  69. Rutter M. Nature-nurture integration: the example of antisocial behavior. Am Psychol. 1997;52:390–398
  70. Jang K, Livesley WJ, Vernon PA. Heritability of the big five personality dimensions and their facets: a twin study. J Pers. 2006;64:577–591
  71. Shenfield F. Gamete donation: ethical implications for donors. Hum Fertil. 1999;2:98–101
  72. ESHRE Task Force on Ethics and Law. III. Gamete and embryo donation. Hum Reprod. 2002;17:1407–1408
  73. Seeminova E. A study of children of incestuous marriages. Hum Hered. 1971;21:108–128
  74. Rogers JG, Danks DM. The genetic consequences of incest. Med J Aust. 1978;2:362–363
  75. Lee S, Edmonston B. New marriages, new families: U.S. racial and hispanic intermarriage. Popul Bull. 2005;60
  76. Shrestha L. The changing demographic profile of the United States: CRS Report for Congress. Congressional Research Service. 2006;
  77. Hobbs F, Stoops N. Demographic trends in the 20th Century: U.S. Department of Commerce. Economic and Statistics Administration. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Census Bureau; 2002;
  78. Lee M, Mather M. U.S. labor force trends. Popul Bull. 2008;63
  79. Martin P, Zucher G. Managing migration: the global challenge. Popul Bull. 2008;63
  80. Wellner A. Is ‘increasing mobility' a threat to U.S. elder care?. In: Population Reference Bureau. 2005;
  81. Han J, Brannigan R. Donor insemination and infertility: what general urologists need to know. Nat Clin Pract Urol. 2008;5:151–158
  82. Shapiro S, Saphire D, Stone W. Changes in American A.I.D. practice during the past decade. Int J Fertil. 1990;35:284–291
  83. Ferrara I, Balet R, Grudzinskas J. Intrauterine donor insemination in single women and lesbian couple: a comparative study of pregnancy rates. Hum Reprod. 2000;15:621–625
  84. Pennings G. The right to choose your donor: a step towards commercialization or a step towards empowering the patient?. Hum Fertil. 2000;15:508–514
  85. National Center for Health Statistics. Vital Statistics of the United States, 1988. Volume lll. Marriage and Divorce. 1996;
  86. Wolf D, Longino C. Our “increasingly mobile society”? The curious persistence of a false belief. Gerontologist. 2005;45:5–11
  87. Schachter J. Geographic Mobility: 2002 to 2003. In: Current Population Reports. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Census Bureau; 2004;
  88. U.S. Census Bureau. Immigration, outmigration, and net migration for metropolitan areas: 1985-2006. In: Historical data from current population survey (CPS). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Census Bureau; 2008;
  89. U.S. Census Bureau. State of Residence in 2000 by state of birth: 2000 (PHC-T-38). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Census Bureau; 2008;
  90. U.S. Census Bureau. Annual geographic mobility rates, by type of movement: 1947-2006. In: Historical data from current population survey (CPS). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Census Bureau; 2008;
  91. U.S. Census Bureau. People on the move: geographic mobility, 1998-99. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Census Bureau; 1999;
  92. U.S. Central Intelligency Agency. People in the United States. In: CIA World Fact Book. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Central Intelligence Agency; 2006;
  93. Curie-Cohen M, Luttrel L, Shapiro S. Current practice of artificial insemination by donor in the United States. N Engl J Med. 1979;300:585–590
  94. Johnson M, Petersen K. Public interest or public meddling? Towards an objective framework for the regulation of assisted reproduction technologies. Hum Reprod. 2008;23:716–728
  95. Wilson J. Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act Privacy Rule causes ongoing concerns among clinicians and researchers. Ann Int Med. 2006;145:313–316
  96. Blyth E, Frith L, Farrand A. Is it possible to recruit gamete donors who are both altruistic and identifiable?. Fertil Steril. 2005;84(Supp 1):S21
  97. Anderson L. Fertility treatment no longer an issue to hide: don't hold back in telling children. The Adelaide Advertiser. 2004;October 15
  98. Infertility Treatment Authority. It's time to tell children about donor conception. http://www.ita.org. Last accessed 4 April, 2007.
  99. Rumball A, Adair V. Telling the story: parents' script for donor offspring. Hum Reprod. 1999;14:1392–1399
  100. Murray C, MacCallum F, Golombok S. Egg donation parents and their children: follow-up at age 12 years. Fertil Steril. 2006;85:610–618
  101. Nachtigall RD, Tschann JM, Quiroga SS, Pitcher L, Becker G. Stigma, disclosure, and family functioning among parents of children conceived through donor insemination. Fertil Steril. 1997;68:83–89
  102. Stephen E. Assisted reproductive technologies: is the price too high?. Population Today. 1999;27:1–2
  103. Egeland T. Excessive use of a single donor? An inadvertent consanguinity. Fertil Steril. 1997;67:1181–1182
  104. McDonough PG. Excessive use of a single donor? An inadvertent consanguinity. Fertility and Sterility. 1997;67:1183–1185
  105. Shenfield F. To know or not to know the identity of gametes donors? The UK and European legal context. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2004;21:95–96
  106. Frith L. Gamete donation, identity, and the offspring's right to know. Virtual Mentor: American Medical Association Journal of Ethics. 2007;9:644–648

 N.S. has nothing to disclose.

PII: S0015-0282(09)00151-4

doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2009.01.099

Fertility and Sterility
Volume 92, Issue 6 , Pages 1811-1817 , December 2009

Article Tools