Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-p6fvt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-03T18:01:48.780Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Secrecy and Openness in Donor Insemination

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 May 2016

Ken R. Daniels  and
Karyn Taylor
Ken R. Daniels
Affiliation:
University of Canterbury, New Zealand
Karyn Taylor
Affiliation:
University of Canterbury, New Zealand
Get access

Abstract

This article explores the issues surrounding the notions of secrecy and openness in donor insemination (DI). Secrecy in DI is first placed in historical context, with an outline of some of the main reasons that secrecy has been advocated. The concept of openness is then introduced, and some of the arguments for a more open approach to DI are presented. On this basis, the responses of various governments to calls for more openness are outlined, and the social policy implications of these are discussed. It is concluded that more openness in DI would be advantageous to all of those involved. Couples, professionals, and policymakers are therefore urged to reexamine their views about the need for maintaining secrecy in the area.

Information

Type
INTERNATIONAL ROUNDTABLE
Information
Politics and the Life Sciences , Volume 12 , Issue 2 , August 1993 , pp. 155 - 170
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Politics and the Life Sciences 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Aitken, J. (1983). “Donor Conceptions: A Conflict of Needs and Rights.” Monash Bioethics News 2:12–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
American Fertility Society (1990). “New Guidelines for the Use of Semen Donor Insemination.” Fertility and Sterility 53:1S–13S.Google Scholar
Andrews, L.B. (1984). “Yours, Mine and Theirs.” Psychology Today 18(December).Google Scholar
Annas, G. (1980). “Fathers Anonymous: Beyond the Best Interests of the Sperm Donor.” Family Law Quarterly 14:1–13.Google Scholar
Asche, A. (1985). Creating Children: Report of the Family Law Council of Australia. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service.Google Scholar
Back, K.W. and Snowden, R. (1988). “The Anonymity of the Gamete Donor.” Journal of Psychosomatic Obstetrics and Gynaecology 9:191–8.Google Scholar
Baran, A. and Pannor, R. (1989). Lethal Secrets. New York: Warner Books.Google Scholar
Barry, N. (1984). “What Shall We Tell AID Babies?” Social Work Today (December):8.Google Scholar
Beck, W.W. (1984). “Two Hundred Years of Artificial Insemination.” Fertility and Sterility 41:193–5.Google Scholar
Behrman, S.J. (1959). “Artificial Insemination.” Fertility and Sterility 10:248–58.Google Scholar
Blank, R.H. (1990). Regulating Reproduction. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Blizzard, J. (1977). Blizzard and the Holy Ghost. London: Peter Owen.Google Scholar
Brandon, J. (1979). “Telling the AID Child.” Adoption and Fostering 95:13–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brandon, J. and Warner, J. (1977). “AID and Adoption: Some Comparisons.” British Journal of Social Work 7:338–40.Google Scholar
Braude, P., Johnson, M.H., and Aitken, R.J. (1990). “Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill Goes to Report Stage.” British Medical Journal 300:1410–12.Google Scholar
Cary, W.H. (1948). “Results of Artificial Insemination with an Extra-Marital Specimen (Semi-Adoption).” American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 56:727–32.Google Scholar
Daniels, K.R. (1987). “Semen Donors in New Zealand: Their Characteristics and Attitudes.” Clinical Reproduction and Fertility 4:341–51.Google Scholar
Daniels, K.R. (1988a). “Artificial Insemination Using Donor Semen and the Issue of Secrecy: The Views of Donors and Recipient Couples.” Social Science and Medicine 27:377–83.Google Scholar
Daniels, K.R. (1988b). “Attitudes to Donor Insemination and In Vitro Fertilization: A Community Perspective.” New Zealand Social Work Review 1:4–10.Google Scholar
Daniels, K.R. (1989). “Semen Donors: Their Motivations and Attitudes to their Offspring.” Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psychology 7:121–7.Google Scholar
Daniels, K.R.(unpublished data). Work in progress on couples' experiences of DI.Google Scholar
Demack, A.G. (1984). Report of the Special Committee Appointed by the Queensland Government to Enquire into the Laws Relating to Artificial Insemination, In Vitro Fertilization and Other Related Matters. Australia.Google Scholar
Edvinsson, A., Forsman, L., Milsom, I. and Nordfors, G. (1990). “Givarinsemination vid Manlig Infertilitet: Slut på en Epok?” [“Donor insemination for Male Infertility: The End of an Era?”] Läkartidningen 87:1871–2.Google Scholar
Elias, S. and Annas, G. (1986). “Social Policy Considerations in Non-Coital Reproduction.” Journal of the American Medical Association 255:67.Google Scholar
Committee, Feversham (1960). Report of the Departmental Committee on Human Artificial Insemination. Cmnd 1105. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
Fletcher, J. (1954). Morals and Medicine. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
Fopp, P. (1982). “The Rights of the Child in Artificial Insemination.” Australian Association of Social Workers (SA Branch) Newsletter (August): 3.Google Scholar
Haderka, J. (1987). “Artificial Reproduction in Czechoslovak Law with Special Reference to Other European Socialist Countries.” International Journal of Law and the Family 1:72–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hagenfeldt, K. (1990). “Givarinsemination Behandlingsmetod: i Kris” [“Donor Insemination: A Treatment in Crisis”] Läkartidningen 87:1849–1850.Google Scholar
Haimes, E. (1988). “Secrecy: What Can Artificial Reproduction Learn from Adoption?” International Journal of Law and the Family 2:46–61.Google Scholar
Handelsman, D.J., Dunn, S.M., Conway, A.J., Boylan, L.M., and Jansen, R.P.S. (1985). “Psychological and Attitudinal Profiles in Donors for Artificial Insemination.” Fertility and Sterility 43:95–101.Google Scholar
Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority (1992). Annual Report, 1992. United Kingdom.Google Scholar
Humphrey, M. and Humphrey, H. (1986). “A Fresh Look at Genealogical Bewilderment.” British Journal of Medical Psychology 59:133–40.Google Scholar
Humphrey, M. and Humphrey, H. (1988). Families with a Difference: Varieties of Surrogate Parenthood. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Infertility (Medical Procedures) Act (1984). Victoria, Australia.Google Scholar
Johnston, I. (1980). “The Donor.” In Wood, C., Leeton, J., and Kovacs, G. (eds.), Artificial Insemination by Donor. Melbourne: Brown Prior Andersen.Google Scholar
Joyce, D.N. (1984). “The Implications of Greater Openness Concerning AID.” In AID and After: Papers from BAAF, BASW, and a Scottish Working Party. London: British Agencies for Adopting and Fostering.Google Scholar
Kirk, H.D. (1981). Adoptive Kinship. Toronto: Butterworths.Google Scholar
Knoppers, B.M. and LeBris, S. (1991). “Recent Advances in Medically Assisted Conception: Legal, Ethical, and Social Issues.” American Journal of Law and Medicine 17:329–61.Google Scholar
Lasker, J.N. and Borg, S. (1989). “Secrecy and the New Reproductive Technologies.” In Whiteford, L.M. and Poland, M.L. (eds.), New Approaches to Human Reproduction: Social and Ethical Dimensions. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Lusk, J. (1988). “The Importance of Children Having Knowledge about Their Parents.” In Bruce, N., Mitchell, A., and Priestley, K., (eds.), Truth and the Child: A Contribution to the Debate on the Warnock Report. Edinburgh: Family Care.Google Scholar
Manuel, C., Chevret, M., and Czyba, J. (1979). “Handling of Secrecy by AID Couples.” In David, G. and Price, W. (eds.), Human Artificial Insemination and Semen Preservation. Paris: International Symposium on Artificial Insemination and Semen Preservation.Google Scholar
McMichael, A. (1980). “Social Aspects.” In Wood, C., Leeton, J., and Kovacs, G. (eds.), Artificial Insemination by Donor. Melbourne: Brown Prior Andersen.Google Scholar
McWhinnie, A.M. (1967). Adopted Children: How They Grow up. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
McWhinnie, A.M. (1984). “Annex: The Case for Greater Openness Concerning AID.” In AID and After: Papers from BAAF, BASW and a Scottish Working Party. London: British Agencies for Adoption and Fostering.Google Scholar
McWhinnie, A.M. (1985) Counselling and Telling in Infertility and AID. British Agencies for Adoption and Fostering Medical Group. Transcript of address to Annual General Meeting and Day Seminar, Liverpool, November 22.Google Scholar
McWhinnie, A.M. (1988). “The Child, the Family and Society.” In Bruce, N., Mitchell, A., and Priestley, K. (eds.), Truth and the Child: A Contribution to the Debate on the Warnock Report. Edinburgh: Family Care.Google Scholar
McWhinnie, A.M.(unpublished manuscript). “A Developmental Chart for Adoptive Family Functioning.” Photocopy.Google Scholar
Menning, B.E. (1981). “Donor Insemination: The Psychosocial Issues.” Contemporary Obstetrics and Gynecology 18:155–72.Google Scholar
Miall, C. (1986). “The Stigma of Involuntary Childlessness.” Social Problems 33:268–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, G.D. (1982). “Family Making by AID.” International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy 2:69–74.Google Scholar
Mitchell, G.D. (1984). “The Family and Society.” In AID and after: Papers from BAAF, BASW and a Scottish Working Party. London: British Agencies for Adoption and Fostering.Google Scholar
National Bioethics Consultative Committee (1988). Access to Information: An Analogy between Adoption and the Use of Gamete Donation. Background paper prepared for the Australian National Bioethics Consultative Committee, and Appendix to the Committee's Report (1991). Commonwealth of Australia.Google Scholar
New Zealand Infertility Society (1990). “Summary of Workshop on Donor Insemination and Artificial Insemination by Husband.” October. Typescript.Google Scholar
Nicholas, M.K. and Tyler, J.P.P. (1983). “Characteristics, Attitudes, and Personalities of AI Donors.” Clinical Reproduction and Fertility 2:47–54.Google Scholar
N.S.W. Infertility Social Workers Group (1988). How I Began: The Story of Donor Insemination. Sydney: Fertility Society of Australia.Google Scholar
Paul, J. and Durna, E. (1987) “Attitudes of Sperm Donors.” Transcript of an oral presentation at the Fertility Society of Australia's annual conference, November 12.Google Scholar
Purdie, A., Peek, J.C., Irwin, R., Ellis, J., Graham, F.M., and Fisher, P.R. (1992). “Identifiable Semen Donors: Attitudes of Donors and Recipient Couples.” New Zealand Medical Journal 105:27–28.Google Scholar
Rawson, G. (1985). “Human Artificial Insemination by Donor and the Australian Community.” Clinical Reproduction and Fertility 3:1–19.Google Scholar
Report of a Commission Appointed by His Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury (1948). Artificial Human Insemination. London: Society for the Propagation of Christian Knowledge.Google Scholar
Rowland, R. (1983). “Attitudes and Opinions of Donors on an Artificial Insemination by Donor (AID) Programme.” Clinical Reproduction and Fertility 2:249–59.Google Scholar
Rowland, R. (1984). “Social and Psychological Consequences of Secrecy in Artificial Insemination by Donor.” In Adoption and AID: Access to Information? Melbourne: Monash University Centre for Human Bioethics.Google Scholar
Rowland, R. (1985). “The Social and Psychological Consequences of Secrecy in Artificial Insemination by Donor (AID) Programmes.” Social Science and Medicine 21:391–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rowland, R.(unpublished manuscript). “The Complexity of Psychological Issues Involved in Artificial Insemination by Donor.” Typescript.Google Scholar
Rowland, R. and Ruffin, C. (1983). “Community Attitudes to Artificial Insemination by Husband or Donor, In Vitro Fertilization, and Adoption.” Clinical Reproduction and Fertility 2:195–206.Google Scholar
Rubin, S. (1983). “A Spermdonor Baby Grows Up.” In Zimmerman, J. (ed.), The Technological Woman: Interfacing with Tomorrow. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Sants, H.J. (1964). “Genealogical Bewilderment in Children with Substitute Parents.” British Journal of Medical Psychology 37:133–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sauer, M.V., Gorrill, M.J., Zeffer, K.B., and Bustillo, M. (1989). “Attitudinal Survey of Sperm Donors to an Artificial Insemination Clinic.” Journal of Reproductive Medicine 34:362–4.Google Scholar
Schoysman, R. (1975). “Problems of Selecting Donors for Artificial Insemination.” Journal of Medical Ethics 1:35.Google Scholar
Singer, P. and Wells, D. (1984). The Reproduction Revolution: New Ways of Making Babies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Snowden, R. (1984). “AID and Artificial Reproduction.” In AID and After: Papers from BAAF, BASW and a Scottish Working Party. London: British Agencies for Adoption and Fostering.Google Scholar
Snowden, R. and Mitchell, G.D. (1981). The Artificial Family: A Consideration of Artificial Insemination by Donor. London: George Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
Snowden, R., Mitchell, G.D., and Snowden, E.M. (1983). Artificial Reproduction: A Social Investigation. London: George Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
Snowden, R. and Snowden, E.M. (1984). The Gift of a Child. London: George Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
Spiers, J. (1988). “Children's Rights to Know Their Identity: Social Work Perspective.” In Bruce, N., Mitchell, A., and Priestley, K (eds.), Truth and the Child: A Contribution to the Debate on the Warnock Report. Edinburgh: Family Care.Google Scholar
Swedish Law on Artificial Insemination, No. 1140/1984.Google Scholar
Triseliotis, J. (1973). In Search of Origins: The Experiences of Adopted People. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Tyler, J.P.P., Nicholas, M.K., Crockett, N.G., and Driscoll, G.L. (1983). “Some Attitudes to Artificial Insemination by Donor.” Clinical Reproduction and Fertility 2:151–60.Google Scholar
United Nations (1948). Universal Declaration of Human Rights.Google Scholar
Waller, L. (1982). Interim Report. Committee to Consider the Social, Ethical and Legal Issues Arising from In Vitro Fertilization. Victoria, Australia.Google Scholar
Walters, L. (1987). “Ethics and New Reproductive Technologies: An International Review of Committee Statements.” Hastings Center Report 17:3–9.Google Scholar
Warnock, M. (1984). Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Human Fertilisation and Embryology. Department of Health and Social Security. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
Warnock, M. (1987) “The Good of the Child.” Bioethics 1:141–55.Google Scholar