1
|
Paulin J, Widbom A, Sydsjö G, Skoog Svanberg A, Lampic C. Psychological well-being and family functioning following identity-release gamete donation or standard IVF: follow-up of parents with adolescent children. HUM FERTIL 2024; 27:2375098. [PMID: 38988202 DOI: 10.1080/14647273.2024.2375098] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/25/2024] [Accepted: 06/27/2024] [Indexed: 07/12/2024]
Abstract
This study sought to investigate if heterosexual-couple parents with adolescent children following identity-release oocyte donation (OD), sperm donation (SD) or standard IVF differed with regard to psychological distress, family functioning, and parent-child relationships. The prospective longitudinal Swedish Study on Gamete Donation consists of couples recruited when starting treatment between 2005 and 2008 from seven Swedish university hospitals providing gamete donation. This study concerns the fifth wave of data collection and included a total of 205 mothers and fathers with adolescent children following OD (n = 73), SD (n = 67), or IVF with own gametes (n = 65). OD/SD parents had used identity-release donation and most had disclosed the donor conception to their child. Parents answered validated instruments measuring symptoms of anxiety and depression (HADS), family functioning (GF6+) and parent-child relationship. Results found that parents following OD or SD did not differ significantly from IVF-parents with regard to symptoms of anxiety and depression, family functioning, and perceived closeness and conflicts with their child. Irrespective of treatment group, most parents were within normal range on psychological distress and family functioning and reported positive parent-child relationships. However, SD mothers to a larger extent reported anxiety symptoms above cut-off compared to OD mothers (31% vs. 7.3%, p = 0.018). In conclusion, the present results add to previous research by including families with adolescent children following identity-release oocyte and sperm donation, most of whom were aware of their donor conception. Largely, our results confirm that the use of gamete donation does not interfere negatively with mothers' and fathers' psychological well-being and perceived family functioning.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Johan Paulin
- Department of Psychology, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden
| | - Andreas Widbom
- Department of Women's and Children's Health, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - Gunilla Sydsjö
- Division of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden
| | | | - Claudia Lampic
- Department of Psychology, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden
- Department of Women's and Children's Health, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Duff MA, Goedeke S. Parents' disclosure to their donor-conceived children in the last 10 years and factors affecting disclosure: a narrative review. Hum Reprod Update 2024; 30:488-527. [PMID: 38687968 PMCID: PMC11215159 DOI: 10.1093/humupd/dmae010] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/24/2023] [Revised: 03/18/2024] [Indexed: 05/02/2024] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Disclosure of donor conception has been advocated in several jurisdictions in recent years, especially in those that practice identity-release donation. However, research on disclosure decisions has not been consolidated systematically in the last 10 years to review if parents are telling and what factors may be impacting their decisions. OBJECTIVE AND RATIONALE Are parents disclosing to their donor-conceived children, and what factors have influenced their disclosure decisions across different contexts and family forms in the last 10 years? SEARCH METHODS A bibliographic search of English-language, peer-reviewed journal articles published between 2012 and 2022 from seven databases was undertaken. References cited in included articles were manually scrutinized to identify additional references and references that cited the included articles were also manually searched. Inclusion criteria were articles focused on parents (including heterosexual, single mothers by choice, same-sex couples, and transsexual) of donor-conceived persons in both jurisdictions with or without identity-release provisions. Studies focused solely on surrogacy, donors, donor-conceived persons, or medical/fertility staff were excluded as were studies where it was not possible to extract donor-recipient parents' data separately. Both quantitative and qualitative studies were included. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines were followed and Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Tools for Systematic Reviews were used to assess article quality and bias. OUTCOMES Thirty-seven articles met the inclusion criteria representing 34 studies and 4248 parents (including heterosexual, single, same-sex, and transsexual parents although the majority were heterosexual) from countries with anonymous donation and those with identity-release provisions or who had subsequently enacted these provisions (Australia, Belgium, Finland, France, Hong Kong, Middle East, Spain, Sweden, the UK, and the USA) A general trend towards disclosure was noted across these groups of parents with most disclosing to their donor-conceived children before the age of 10 years. Further, the majority of those who had not yet told, reported planning to disclose, although delayed decisions were also associated with lower disclosure overall. Same-sex and single parents were more likely to disclose than heterosexual parents. There was recognition of disclosure as a process involving ongoing conversations and that decisions were impacted by multiple interacting intrapersonal, interpersonal, and external contextual and social factors. Methodological limitations, such as the different population groups and contexts from which participants were drawn (including that those parents who choose not to disclose may be less likely to participate in research), are acknowledged in integrating findings. WIDER IMPLICATIONS This review has reinforced the need for a theoretical model to explain parents' disclosure decisions and research exploring the role of legislative provisions, culture, and donor/family type in decision-making. Greater ongoing access to psychological support around disclosure may be important to promote parent and family well-being.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Michelle A Duff
- Department of Psychology and Neuroscience, School of Clinical Sciences, Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand
| | - Sonja Goedeke
- Department of Psychology and Neuroscience, School of Clinical Sciences, Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Lysons J, Imrie S, Jadva V, Golombok S. Families created via identity-release egg donation: disclosure and an exploration of donor threat in early childhood. Reprod Biomed Online 2023; 47:103235. [PMID: 37479604 DOI: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2023.05.007] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/24/2023] [Accepted: 05/09/2023] [Indexed: 07/23/2023]
Abstract
RESEARCH QUESTION What are mothers' disclosure intentions and practices from infancy to early childhood, and is perceived donor threat associated with disclosure in identity-release egg donation families when the children are aged 5 years? DESIGN This longitudinal study included 73 heterosexual-couple families with infants born following IVF-egg donation at phase one, and 61 families with 5-year-old children at phase two. At both phases, mothers were interviewed about their disclosure intentions and practices. At phase two, mothers were interviewed about their feelings about future donor-child contact. RESULTS Most mothers (75.3%) intended to disclose their use of egg donation to their children at phase one; half had begun to do so when their children were aged 5. Most remaining mothers planned to tell, although a minority were uncertain or planned not to disclose. When the child was aged 5, four mothers had started telling them that they could access their donor's identifying information at age 18, and most (84%) intended to do so in the future. Most couples agreed on a disclosure strategy at phase two. Most mothers perceived at least some threat from future donor-child contact, but this was unrelated to their disclosure practices. CONCLUSIONS Disclosure intentions in infancy are borne out in early childhood. Despite perceiving some threat from future donor-child contact, most mothers intended telling their child that they could access the donor's identifying information at age 18. Revisiting these families as the children grow older will be important to understand how the mothers' perceived donor threat may change over time, and how this is related to family processes.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Joanna Lysons
- Centre for Family Research, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK..
| | - Susan Imrie
- Centre for Family Research, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Vasanti Jadva
- Centre for Family Research, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.; Institute for Women's Health, Faculty of Population Health Sciences, University College London, London, UK
| | - Susan Golombok
- Centre for Family Research, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Rodino IS, Sanders KA. The influence of avoidant attachment and perceived support on disclosure about involvement in donor-assisted conception to family and friends. Hum Reprod 2023; 38:644-654. [PMID: 36737051 DOI: 10.1093/humrep/dead019] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/12/2022] [Revised: 12/07/2022] [Indexed: 02/05/2023] Open
Abstract
STUDY QUESTION Do the attachment-related dimensions Anxiety and Avoidance and perceived partner and social support in recipients and donors influence disclosure to others about their involvement in donor-assisted conception (DAC)? SUMMARY ANSWER A higher global score on attachment Avoidance was associated with greater non-disclosure about involvement in DAC by participants to relationship-specific others. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY Within the context of DAC, the topic of disclosure has been investigated in terms of the 'if', 'when', and the 'how' to disclose about circumstances of conception. Less focus, however, has been directed to investigating psychological theoretical frameworks that influence disclosure decisions to others, i.e. to whom information is disclosed and to what extent details are transparently revealed about the donor programme. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION The study was of a cross-sectional design and utilized a sample of 301 participants who were, or had been, involved in DAC, and were recruited across states of Australia. An online self-report questionnaire was completed between June 2014 and June 2017. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS English speaking participants consisting of 209 female recipients and 92 donors (36 sperm; 48 egg; 8 embryo donors). Of the recipients, 104 had successfully conceived children via donated gametes (68 sperm, 23 eggs, 6 embryos, and 7 recipients where both gametes were donated from 2 donors to create the embryo). Participants anonymously completed an online questionnaire consisting of five sections: Demographics, Donor Conception and Disclosure Practices, the Experiences in Close Relationships-Relationships Structure, the Quality of Relationship Inventory, and the Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support. Pearson correlations, independent samples t-tests, Chi-square, and ANOVA were used to explore the association between attachment Anxiety and Avoidance scores and disclosure about involvement in a DAC programme to significant others (i.e. parents, siblings, in-laws, and friends). MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE Compared to published community cohort data, participants reported lower global scores on attachment Anxiety and Avoidance and high levels of romantic partner and social network support, suggestive of secure relationships in the overall study sample. A higher score on attachment Avoidance was associated with less disclosure to significant others in their social network (i.e. parents, siblings, in-laws, and close friends), even in the presence of strong partner support (partial r = -0.248, P = 0.005). Higher scores on attachment Avoidance were inversely associated with level of perceived partner and social network support (all P < 0.05). Irrespective of attachment scores, more than 90% of all participants agreed that a child born of DAC should be told about mode of conception. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION This study utilized a cross-sectional design precluding causal inferences between dimensions of insecure attachment and disclosure practices. Participants were required to self-report on the quality of their relationships with the potential for social desirability respondent bias. The study's self-selecting sample may limit generalization to participants who were dis-inclined to participate. Specifically, respondents who have an Avoidant attachment style, may have elected not to participate in the study. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS Given the increased use of biotechnology and digital facial recognition enabling self-discovery of the donor and the donor's extended family, non-disclosure about involvement in DAC may have consequences. An 'Avoidant' attachment style is important to assess as a potential risk factor for non-disclosure about involvement in DAC across different relational contexts (e.g. close family members and friends). Fertility counsellors should consider introducing a measure of attachment screening as a pre-emptive psychoeducational strategy during donor implications counselling. This information could be used to offer patients insight into concerns they have about DAC disclosures to key important relationships, providing a target of clinical intervention. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S) No external funds were sought for this work. None of the authors have any competing interests to declare. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER N/A.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Iolanda S Rodino
- Medical School, The University of Western Australia, Perth, Western Australia, Australia
| | - Katherine A Sanders
- School of Human Sciences, The University of Western Australia, Perth, Western Australia, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Adrian SW, Ravn T, Herrmann JR, Sylvest R, Kokado M, Semba Y, Fencker M, Skytte A, Sellmer A, Grønbæk E, Wahlberg A, Kesmodel U. Gamete donation in the time of DNA surprises. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2022; 101:1348-1350. [PMID: 36397291 PMCID: PMC9812069 DOI: 10.1111/aogs.14483] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/28/2022] [Revised: 11/01/2022] [Accepted: 11/02/2022] [Indexed: 11/20/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Stine W. Adrian
- Department of Culture and LearningAalborg UniversityAalborgDenmark
| | - Tine Ravn
- The Danish Center for Studies in Research and Research PolicyAarhus UniversityAarhusDenmark
| | | | | | - Minori Kokado
- Laboratory of Social SciencesKobe Pharmaceutical UniversityKobeJapan
| | - Yukari Semba
- Institute for Gender Studies, Ochanomizu UniversityTokioJapan
| | | | | | | | | | - Ayo Wahlberg
- Department of AnthropologyCopenhagen UniversityCopenhagenDenmark
| | - Ulrik Kesmodel
- Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyAalborg University HospitalAalborgDenmark,Department of Clinical MedicineAalborg UniversityAalborgDenmark
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Siegel DR, Sheeder J, Kramer W, Roeca C. Are donor-conceived people willing to use donors themselves? Insights from individuals conceived via donor-assisted reproduction. Hum Reprod 2022; 37:2087-2094. [PMID: 35906918 DOI: 10.1093/humrep/deac169] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/09/2022] [Revised: 07/09/2022] [Indexed: 11/15/2022] Open
Abstract
STUDY QUESTION Are donor-conceived people (DCP) willing to utilize donor gametes themselves if unable to conceive spontaneously? SUMMARY ANSWER The majority of DCP would consider or are undecided about utilizing donor gametes and those who would consider the utilization are more likely to have been told about their donor-conceived origins at a young age by a family member and have overall positive experiences as a DCP. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY DCP view their donor conception as an important part of their self-identity and many desire contact with genetically related individuals. Additionally, many believe that sperm donation should only be practiced if identifying information on the donor is provided. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION This was a cross-sectional study using a Web-based survey that was disseminated from 6 March to 15 August 2021. A total of 528 participants completed the questionnaire. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS The researcher-created survey was sent to registered users of the Donor Sibling Registry (DSR) who were conceived via donor-assisted reproduction and were 18 years of age or older. The survey was optional and anonymous, and the main outcome measure was the willingness to use donated gametes if unable to spontaneously conceive. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE Of the 528 participants who completed the survey, 40.2% (212/528) have or would consider using donor gametes themselves if unable to conceive spontaneously and 24.6% (130/528) were undecided. Those who had used or were undecided about the utilization were significantly younger (26 years vs. 31 years, P < 0.001) and less likely to be married (32.7% vs. 47.3%, P < 0.001) than those who would not consider using donor gametes. They were also less likely to self-identify as female (78.9% vs. 86.6%, P = 0.03) but had no difference in sexual orientation (P = 0.13). Additionally, they were more likely to have known about their donor-conceived origins for more years (18 (0-50) vs. 11 (0-61), P = 0.004), be informed by a family member (75.5% vs. 65.6%, P = 0.001) and have overall positive feelings about being conceived using a donor (93.0% vs. 52.5%, P < 0.001). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION A major limitation is that DSR participants may not be representative of all DCP. Additionally, analyzing the DCP who stated that they were undecided about using donor gametes into the 'would consider' group may be overestimating the openness to utilization in this group. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS The findings from this study give new insight for health care workers to further counsel patients who are considering using third-party reproduction by providing reassurance that the majority of their future children would consider similar means, if needed, to achieve their family-building goals. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S) Funding for this study was received from the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology Division of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility, University of Colorado. All authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest to disclose. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER N/A.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- D R Siegel
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO, USA
| | - J Sheeder
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO, USA
| | - W Kramer
- Donor Sibling Registry, Nederland, CO, USA
| | - C Roeca
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO, USA.,Shady Grove Fertility, Greenwood Village, CO, USA
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Simoni MK, Gilstad-Hayden K, Naqvi SH, Pal L, Yonkers KA. Progression of depression and anxiety symptoms in pregnancies conceived by assisted reproductive technology in the United States. J Psychosom Obstet Gynaecol 2022; 43:214-223. [PMID: 34472405 PMCID: PMC10116357 DOI: 10.1080/0167482x.2021.1971193] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/20/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE Women who utilize assisted-reproductive technology (ART) to achieve pregnancy experience unique circumstances before and during their pregnancy. This study aims to examine the progression of mental health in pregnant women who conceived via various methods of ART to understand gestational time periods of emotional stability or risk specific to these populations. METHODS Secondary analysis of the Yale Pink and Blue Study - a prospective cohort involving women from 137 obstetrical practices in the northeastern United States between 2005-2009. Depressive and anxiety symptoms among spontaneous, planned pregnancies were compared to ART pregnancies using the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) and its anxiety subscale (EPDS-3A), respectively. Generalized Estimating Equations were used to compare group changes (EPDS and EPDS-3A score threshold ≥10) at timepoints of <17 weeks (T1), 28(±2) weeks (T2), and 8(±4) weeks postpartum (T3). RESULTS 1,466 spontaneous, planned pregnancies were compared to 191 pregnancies conceived via ART. Prevalence of depressive symptoms were similar between conception groups. Change in prevalence over time differed significantly between those groups (from T1 to T3 (β 0.59), as well as between spontaneous pregnancies compared to autologous gamete ART pregnancies (from T1 to T2 (β 0.48) and T1 to T3 (β 0.65). Course of anxiety did not differ between conception groups. CONCLUSIONS Women who conceive via ART have different rates of change in depressive symptoms throughout gestation compared to women with spontaneous pregnancies.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Michael K Simoni
- Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology & Reproductive Sciences, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT USA
| | | | - Syed H Naqvi
- Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology & Reproductive Sciences, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT USA
| | - Lubna Pal
- Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology & Reproductive Sciences, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT USA
| | | |
Collapse
|
8
|
Widbom A, Sydsjö G, Lampic C. Psychological adjustment in disclosing and non-disclosing heterosexual-couple families following conception with oocytes or sperm from identity-release donors. Reprod Biomed Online 2022; 45:1046-1053. [DOI: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2022.06.011] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/03/2022] [Revised: 05/27/2022] [Accepted: 06/16/2022] [Indexed: 10/18/2022]
|
9
|
Ishii T, de Miguel Beriain I. Shifting to a model of donor conception that entails a communication agreement among the parents, donor, and offspring. BMC Med Ethics 2022; 23:18. [PMID: 35246130 PMCID: PMC8895777 DOI: 10.1186/s12910-022-00756-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/01/2021] [Accepted: 02/23/2022] [Indexed: 11/25/2022] Open
Abstract
Background Some persons conceived with donor gametes react negatively when they found their birth via donor conception. They request access to information about and seek to communicate with the donor. However, some countries mandate donor anonymity. Other countries allow donor-conceived persons to access donor information, but they can only use this access if their parents have disclosed donor conception to them. We investigated a thorny issue of donor conception: whether donor conception should be shifted from an anonymous basis to a non-anonymous basis. Methods We review the issues and concerns regarding donor conception. We then consider the impact of direct-to-consumer genetic testing on donor conception, as well as the influence of donor conception on offspring’s identity and the potential of different types of donors. To discuss the future policy of donor conception, the policies on the anonymity of gamete donors were investigated using publicly-available documents in 15 countries. Results The aim of mandating donor anonymity is to protect the privacy of the donor and intended parents. However, the diffusion of direct-to-consumer genetic testing may make it impossible to maintain anonymity. Birth via donor conception shapes the offspring’s identity, and the donor may further influence the development of offspring’s identity through communications. It remains important to disclose donor conception to donor-conceived offspring and to provide them with donor information. However, that information might be insufficient for some donor-conceived persons. Here are benefits to having open-identity donors and known donors. Such donors can make an agreement with the parents regarding future communication with the offspring, although both sides should respect privacy. Subsequent counseling for all parties involved can result in better tripartite communication agreements. Conclusions In sum, ethical and practical issues that complicate donor anonymity are driving a shift to non-anonymous donor conception, in which all parties come to a communication agreement. To pave the way for such a donor conception system, transitional measures can be put into place. For countries that already adopted non-anonymous donor conception, ensuring the communication agreements is important to protect the rights of parents, donor, and offspring. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12910-022-00756-1.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Tetsuya Ishii
- Office of Health and Safety, Hokkaido University, Sapporo, 0600808, Japan.
| | - Iñigo de Miguel Beriain
- Law and the Human Genome RG, University of the Basque Country UPV/EHU, Faculty of Law, Library Building, 6th-Floor, Leioa Campus, Barrio Sarriena S/N, 48940, Leioa, Spain
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Harper JC, Abdul I, Barnsley N, Ilan-Clarke Y. Telling donor-conceived children about their conception: Evaluation of the use of the Donor Conception Network children's books. REPRODUCTIVE BIOMEDICINE & SOCIETY ONLINE 2022; 14:1-7. [PMID: 34604554 PMCID: PMC8463736 DOI: 10.1016/j.rbms.2021.06.002] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/22/2020] [Revised: 03/23/2021] [Accepted: 06/03/2021] [Indexed: 06/13/2023]
Abstract
If parents have used donated gametes, it is a personal choice whether they disclose to their children. For those that do, there is, however, little advice on how to tell their children. The Donor Conception Network (DCN) has made a series of books to help parents disclose. This study evaluated parents' experience of using these books. An online survey with both quantitative and qualitative questions was used. The DCN membership and social media were used to publicize the survey, and 108 responses were analysed. At the time of conception, the parents' family types were mainly mother and father (56.5%) and solo mothers (36.1%). The method of conception was mainly donor spermatozoa (55.6%) followed by donor egg (38.0%), double donation (8.3%) and one case of surrogacy. Most parents had read the book to their children before 2 years of age (76.9%). Before reading the books, some of the parents had some confidence in telling (43.5%) or were very confident in telling (30.6%). After reading the books, 60.2% reported having much more confidence in telling. Most parents felt their children had no understanding (76.8%) or only some understanding (22.3%) of donor conception before reading the books. After reading the books most parents felt their children's understanding had increased (71.3%). Most parents felt that reading the books had given them more confidence in using donor conception language (90.7%). The use of books to tell children about their conception may be a useful resource for parents wishing to be open with their children.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Joyce C. Harper
- Institute for Women’s Health, University College London, London, UK
| | - Ishaq Abdul
- Institute for Women’s Health, University College London, London, UK
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
11
|
Kirkman-Brown J, Calhaz-Jorge C, Dancet EAF, Lundin K, Martins M, Tilleman K, Thorn P, Vermeulen N, Frith L. Good practice recommendations for information provision for those involved in reproductive donation †. Hum Reprod Open 2022; 2022:hoac001. [PMID: 35178481 PMCID: PMC8847071 DOI: 10.1093/hropen/hoac001] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/14/2021] [Revised: 12/14/2021] [Indexed: 11/26/2022] Open
Abstract
STUDY QUESTION What information and support should be offered to donors, intended parents and donor-conceived people, in general and in consideration of the availability of direct-to-consumer genetic testing and matching services? SUMMARY ANSWER For donors, intended parents and donor-conceived offspring, recommendations are made that cover information needs and informed consent, psychosocial implications and disclosure. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY Trends indicate that the use of donor-assisted conception is growing and guidance is needed to help these recipients/intended parents, the donors and offspring, navigate the rapidly changing environment in which donor-assisted conception takes place. STUDY DESIGN SIZE DURATION A working group (WG) collaborated on writing recommendations based, where available, on evidence collected from a literature search and expert opinion. Draft recommendations were published for stakeholder review and adapted where relevant based on the comments received. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS SETTING METHODS Papers retrieved from PUBMED were included from 1 January 2014 up to 31 August 2020, focusing on studies published since direct-to-consumer genetic testing has become more widespread and accessible. The current paper is limited to reproductive donation performed in medically assisted reproduction (MAR) centres (and gamete banks): donation outside the medical context was not considered. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE In total, 32 recommendations were made for information provision and support to donors, 32 for intended parents and 27 for donor-conceived offspring requesting information/support. LIMITATIONS REASONS FOR CAUTION The available evidence in the area of reproductive donation is limited and diverse with regards to the context and types of donation. General conclusions and recommendations are largely based on expert opinion and may need to be adapted in light of future research. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS These recommendations provide guidance to MAR centres and gamete banks on good practice in information provision and support but should also be considered by regulatory bodies and policymakers at a national and international level to guide regulatory and legislative efforts towards the protection of donors and donor-conceived offspring. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS The development of this good practice paper was funded by European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE), covering expenses associated with the WG meetings, the literature searches and dissemination. The WG members did not receive any payment. The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare. DISCLAIMER This document represents the views of ESHRE, which are the result of consensus between the relevant ESHRE stakeholders and where relevant based on the scientific evidence available at the time of preparation. The recommendations should be used for informational and educational purposes. They should not be interpreted as setting a standard of care, or be deemed inclusive of all proper methods of care nor exclusive of other methods of care reasonably directed to obtaining the same results. They do not replace the need for application of clinical judgement to each individual presentation, nor variations based on locality and facility type. †ESHRE pages content is not externally peer reviewed. The manuscript has been approved by the Executive Committee of ESHRE.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Jackson Kirkman-Brown
- Centre for Human Reproductive Science, University of Birmingham, IMSR, Birmingham, UK
| | | | - Eline A F Dancet
- KU Leuven, Department of Development and Regeneration, Leuven, Belgium
| | - Kersti Lundin
- Department of Reproductive Medicine, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden
| | - Mariana Martins
- University of Porto, Faculty of Psychology and Education Sciences, Porto, Portugal
| | - Kelly Tilleman
- Department for Reproductive Medicine, Universitair Ziekenhuis Gent, Ghent, Belgium
| | - Petra Thorn
- Private Practice, Couple and Family Therapy, Infertility Counseling, Mörfelden, Germany
| | - Nathalie Vermeulen
- European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE) Central Office, Strombeek-Bever, Belgium
| | - Lucy Frith
- Centre for Social Ethics and Policy, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Hadizadeh-Talasaz F, Simbar M, Latifnejad Roudsari R. Exploring Infertile Couples' Decisions to Disclose Donor Conception to The Future Child. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF FERTILITY & STERILITY 2020; 14:240-246. [PMID: 33098393 PMCID: PMC7604704 DOI: 10.22074/ijfs.2020.44408] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Download PDF] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/07/2019] [Accepted: 06/02/2020] [Indexed: 12/22/2022]
Abstract
Background Despite significant advances in reproductive technology, using donor assisted reproductive technology
is a double-edged sword that has numerous challenges. One of the most challenging issues for couples is whether or
not to disclose this information to donor offspring. This study, therefore, explored infertile couples’ decision to dis-
close donor conception to their future child. Materials and Methods This qualitative study was conducted using content analysis approach in 2012 in the Milad
Infertility Centre, Mashhad, Iran. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews with 32 infertile persons
including nine couples and 14 women who were selected by purposive sampling. Data were analysed by conven-
tional qualitative content analysis adopted by Graneheim and Lundman using MAXQDA 2010 software. Results Two categories were emerged: ‘not to disclose information to the child’ and ‘to disclose information to
the child’. The first category consisted of three subcategories: 1. child support from probable harms; 2.to maintain
healthy family relationships; and 3. lack of a compelling reason to disclose this information. The second category
embraced four subcategories: 1. awareness of the others; 2. emergence of new living conditions; 3. appreciation for
the donor; and 4. honesty among family members. The main reason for not disclosing information was to protect the
child from probable harm. Conclusion Although protecting children from possible harms was a major reason for infertile couples' secrecy,
keeping this secret would not be always easy. Therefore, increasing public awareness about the donation process in
order to change the beliefs of community and eliminate the infertile couples’ concerns would help them to overcome
this problem. Additionally, long-term psychological counselling during and after the donation process is highly rec-
ommended.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Fatemeh Hadizadeh-Talasaz
- Department of Midwifery, Faculty of Medicine, Social Development and Health Promotion Research Centre, Gonabad University of Medical Sciences, Gonabad, Iran
| | - Masoumeh Simbar
- Midwifery and Reproductive Health Research Centre, Department of Midwifery and Reproductive Health, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
| | - Robab Latifnejad Roudsari
- Nursing and Midwifery Care Research Centre, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran.,Department of Midwifery, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran. Electronic Address:
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
Hershberger PE, Driessnack M, Kavanaugh K, Klock SC. Oocyte donation disclosure decisions: a longitudinal follow-up at middle childhood. HUM FERTIL 2019; 24:31-45. [PMID: 30724630 DOI: 10.1080/14647273.2019.1567945] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/27/2022]
Abstract
Few studies have captured oocyte donation (OD) parents' decision processes about intended and actual disclosure over time. Likewise, OD children's perceptions about their family composition during middle childhood are underexplored. To address these gaps, a longitudinally followed cohort of OD recipient families was invited to participate in a qualitative, follow-up study. With an 86% response rate after 12 years, families were composed of oocyte recipient mothers (n = 6) and biological fathers (n = 6) representing 12 donor-oocyte conceived children (10.33 ± 1.23 years; mean ± SD). Of the 12 children, two that were aware and two that were unaware of their conceptual origins completed conversational interviews. Only one family in the initial cohort had disclosed OD to their children by the 12-year follow-up, despite 43% of parents intending to disclose and another 43% undecided about disclosure during pregnancy. Four parental disclosure patterns emerged at 12 years: (i) wanting to disclose; (ii) conflicted about disclosure; (iii) not planning to disclose; and (iv) having disclosed. Children that were unaware of their conceptual origins displayed no knowledge of their method of conception. There is a need for family-centric interventions to assist 'wanting to disclose' parents in their disclosure process and 'conflicted about disclosure' parents in their decision-making process post-OD treatment.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Patricia E Hershberger
- Department of Health Systems Science, College of Nursing, Chicago, IL, USA.,Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, College of Medicine, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA
| | - Martha Driessnack
- School of Nursing, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR, USA
| | - Karen Kavanaugh
- Department of Nursing Research, Children's Hospital of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI, USA
| | - Susan C Klock
- Departments of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
Long-term outcomes of children conceived through egg donation and their parents: a review of the literature. Fertil Steril 2018; 110:1187-1193. [DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2018.08.040] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/16/2018] [Revised: 08/09/2018] [Accepted: 08/13/2018] [Indexed: 02/06/2023]
|
15
|
Sälevaara M, Punamäki RL, Unkila-Kallio L, Vänskä M, Tulppala M, Tiitinen A. The mental health of mothers and fathers during pregnancy and early parenthood after successful oocyte donation treatment: A nested case-control study. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2018; 97:1478-1485. [PMID: 29975790 DOI: 10.1111/aogs.13421] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/20/2017] [Accepted: 06/28/2018] [Indexed: 11/28/2022]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION The aim of this study was to compare the mental health problems between parents after oocyte donation treatment, after in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (IVF/ICSI) with own gametes and after naturally conceiving (NC). MATERIAL AND METHODS This is a prospective, longitudinal questionnaire study. The study group consisted of 26 oocyte donation mothers and their matched IVF/ICSI (n = 52) and NC (n = 52) controls. Matching was performed according to mother's age, parity, type of pregnancy, and number of returned questionnaires. The parents filled-in the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-36) at gestational weeks 18-20 (T1), and at 2 months (T2) and 12 months (T3) after the childbirth. RESULTS Full response rate (T1-T3) for oocyte donation mothers was 76.9% and for oocyte donation fathers was 73.1%. At T1, no significant differences were found between groups in depression, anxiety, sleeping difficulties, or social dysfunction, but they differed at T2 and T3 in anxiety (T2, P = .02; T3, P = .01), in sleeping difficulties (T2, P = .02; T3, P = .04) and in social dysfunction (T2, P = .01; T3, P = .04). Oocyte donation mothers showed less anxiety than NC mothers (T2, T3), and fewer sleeping difficulties and less social dysfunction than IVF/ICSI (T2, T3) and NC mothers (T2). Mental health problems of oocyte donation fathers did not differ from those of IVF/ICSI and NC control fathers at T1-T3. CONCLUSIONS Oocyte donation mothers showed fewer mental health symptoms in early parenthood compared with IVF/ICSI and NC mothers. No differences were found among mothers during pregnancy and among fathers at any time point.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mari Sälevaara
- Väestöliitto Fertility Clinic Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
| | | | - Leila Unkila-Kallio
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
| | - Mervi Vänskä
- Faculty of Social Sciences/Psychology, University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland
| | - Maija Tulppala
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
| | - Aila Tiitinen
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
| |
Collapse
|
16
|
Abstract
When intended parents choose to have donor sperm treatment (DST), this may entail wide-ranging and long-lasting psychosocial implications related to the social parent not having a genetic tie with the child, how to disclose donor-conception and future donor contact. Counselling by qualified professionals is recommended to help intended parents cope with these implications. The objective of this study is to present findings and insights about how counsellors execute their counselling practices. We performed a qualitative study that included 13 counsellors working in the 11 clinics offering DST in the Netherlands. We held a focus group discussion and individual face-to-face semi-structured interviews, which were fully transcribed and analysed using thematic analysis. The counsellors combined screening for eligibility and guidance within one session. They acted according to their individual knowledge and clinical experience and had different opinions on the issues they discussed with intended parents, which resulted in large practice variations. The counsellors were dependent on the admission policies of the clinics, which were mainly limited to regulating access to psychosocial counselling, which also lead to a variety of counselling practices. This means that evidence-based guidelines on counselling in DST need to be developed to provide consistent counselling with less practice variation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Marja Visser
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Centre for Reproductive Medicine, Academic Medical Centre Amsterdam, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Trudie Gerrits
- Faculty of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Sociology and Anthropology, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Fulco van der Veen
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Centre for Reproductive Medicine, Academic Medical Centre Amsterdam, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Monique Mochtar
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Centre for Reproductive Medicine, Academic Medical Centre Amsterdam, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
17
|
Harper JC, Aittomäki K, Borry P, Cornel MC, de Wert G, Dondorp W, Geraedts J, Gianaroli L, Ketterson K, Liebaers I, Lundin K, Mertes H, Morris M, Pennings G, Sermon K, Spits C, Soini S, van Montfoort APA, Veiga A, Vermeesch JR, Viville S, Macek M. Recent developments in genetics and medically assisted reproduction: from research to clinical applications. Eur J Hum Genet 2018; 26:12-33. [PMID: 29199274 PMCID: PMC5839000 DOI: 10.1038/s41431-017-0016-z] [Citation(s) in RCA: 55] [Impact Index Per Article: 9.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/23/2017] [Accepted: 09/14/2017] [Indexed: 12/15/2022] Open
Abstract
Two leading European professional societies, the European Society of Human Genetics and the European Society for Human Reproduction and Embryology, have worked together since 2004 to evaluate the impact of fast research advances at the interface of assisted reproduction and genetics, including their application into clinical practice. In September 2016, the expert panel met for the third time. The topics discussed highlighted important issues covering the impacts of expanded carrier screening, direct-to-consumer genetic testing, voiding of the presumed anonymity of gamete donors by advanced genetic testing, advances in the research of genetic causes underlying male and female infertility, utilisation of massively parallel sequencing in preimplantation genetic testing and non-invasive prenatal screening, mitochondrial replacement in human oocytes, and additionally, issues related to cross-generational epigenetic inheritance following IVF and germline genome editing. The resulting paper represents a consensus of both professional societies involved.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- J C Harper
- Institute for Women's Health, University College London, London, UK
| | - K Aittomäki
- Laboratory of Genetics, Helsinki University Hospital, Helsinki, Finland
| | - P Borry
- Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Centre for Biomedical Ethics and Law, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| | - M C Cornel
- Department of Clinical Genetics, Section Community Genetics, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - G de Wert
- Department of Health, Ethics and Society, Research Schools CAPHRI and GROW, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - W Dondorp
- Department of Health, Ethics and Society, Research Schools CAPHRI and GROW, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - J Geraedts
- Department Genetics and Cell Biology, GROW School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - L Gianaroli
- S.I.S.Me.R. Reproductive Medicine Unit, Bologna, Italy
| | | | - I Liebaers
- Center for Medical Genetics, UZ Brussels, Brussels, Belgium
- Research Group Reproduction and Genetics, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium
| | - K Lundin
- Reproductive Medicine, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Göteborg, Sweden
| | - H Mertes
- Bioethics Institute Ghent, Department of Philosophy and Moral Science, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium
| | - M Morris
- Synlab Genetics, Lausanne, Switzerland
| | - G Pennings
- Bioethics Institute Ghent, Department of Philosophy and Moral Science, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium
| | - K Sermon
- Research Group Reproduction and Genetics, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium
| | - C Spits
- Research Group Reproduction and Genetics, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium
| | - S Soini
- Helsinki Biobank, Helsinki University Central Hospital, Helsinki, Finland
| | - A P A van Montfoort
- IVF Laboratory, Department of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - A Veiga
- Barcelona Stem Cell Bank, Centre of Regenerative Medicine in Barcelona, Hospital Duran i Reynals, Barcelona, Spain
- Reproductive Medicine Service of Dexeus Woman Health, Barcelona, Spain
| | - J R Vermeesch
- Department of Human Genetics, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| | - S Viville
- Institute of Parasitology and Pathology, University of Strasbourg, Strasbourg, France
- Laboratory of Genetic Diagnostics, UF3472-Genetics of Infertility, Nouvel Hôpital Civil, Strasbourg, France
| | - M Macek
- Department of Biology and Medical Genetics, Charles University-2nd Faculty of Medicine and Motol University Hospital, Prague, Czech Republic.
| |
Collapse
|
18
|
Patel A, Sharma PSVN, Kumar P. Psychosocial Aspects of Therapeutic Donor Insemination. J Hum Reprod Sci 2018; 11:315-319. [PMID: 30787514 PMCID: PMC6333032 DOI: 10.4103/jhrs.jhrs_108_18] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/04/2022] Open
Abstract
The experience of delays in conception or possibility of remaining childless has the potential to create considerable psychological discomfort. In couples with severe male factor infertility, therapeutic intrauterine insemination using donor sperms (TDI) is offered as a treatment, second to in vitro fertilization using donor sperms. TDI is lucrative, less invasive, and a hopeful treatment. However, there are intricacies associated with it. Its immediate outcomes involve limited success rates, nonresponse, and chances of implantation failures, miscarriages, and multifetal pregnancies. Due to this, couples experience distress when they are advised to undergo three to six cycles of TDI in order to meet the expectations of having a baby. TDI has long-term issues on the triad comprising the "recipients," the "donors," and the "the children born out of TDI." Nevertheless, managing psychosocial needs for couples undergoing TDI and other treatments in Indian clinics are grey areas of the conventional treatment pathway. The present review expands on the psychological issues and needs in couples opting for TDI.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ansha Patel
- Department of Psychiatry, Kasturba Medical College, Manipal, Karnataka, India,Address for correspondence: Dr. Ansha Patel, Room No. 33, Department of Psychiatry, Third Floor, OPD Building, Kasturba Medical College, Manipal, Karnataka, India. E-mail:
| | - P. S. V. N. Sharma
- Department of Psychiatry, Kasturba Medical College, Manipal University, Manipal, Karnataka, India
| | - Pratap Kumar
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Kasturba Medical College, Manipal University, Manipal, Karnataka, India
| |
Collapse
|
19
|
Rumpikova T, Oborna I, Belaskova S, Konecna H, Rumpik D. The attitudes of IVF patients treated in the Czech Republic towards informing children born after gamete donation. Biomed Pap Med Fac Univ Palacky Olomouc Czech Repub 2017; 162:26-31. [PMID: 29213142 DOI: 10.5507/bp.2017.050] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/21/2017] [Accepted: 11/13/2017] [Indexed: 11/23/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND In recent decades gamete donation has received growing attention. Data from the Czech National Registry of Assisted Reproduction show that the number of cycles using donated oocytes has been increasing every year. According to Czech law, gamete donation is anonymous. Since 2011, some members of the Czech parliament have repeatedly made requests to revoke the anonymity but anonymity is one of the preconditions for such donation in this country. The aim of this study was to find out how the gamete recipients feel towards informing their child about the circumstances of their conception and their access to the identity of the donor. METHODS A total of 195 recipients (122 women undergoing treatment - 43 Czechs, 79 foreigners (Western Europe and the USA) and 73 male partners - 28 Czechs, 45 foreigners) participated in this survey. The data were obtained by anonymous questionnaire. RESULTS A significant difference between the attitude of the future Czech and foreign parents regarding disclosing the mode of conception was found (P = 0.003). The vast majority of Czechs were against disclosure. The foreign recipients were somewhat more divided. Regarding the donor's identity, there was no difference in atttitude between the groups. Recipients rarely consider that the knowledge of the donor's identity will be important for their child. The recipients overall, were convinced that the psychological aspects of parenting are far more important to the child than genetics, and see no reasons for disclosing the donor´s identity. CONCLUSION While the the foreign recipients were less adamant about non-disclosure, the overall finding was in accord with the current Czech law on anonymity and not in agreement with the proposed abolition. The recipient's attitudes towards disclosing were also culturally determined. The fact that some countries have revised their rules towards open idendity is not a rationale for such change in the Czech Republic.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Tatana Rumpikova
- Clinic of Reproductive Medicine and Gynecology Zlin, Czech Republic.,Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, Palacky University Olomouc, Czech Republic
| | - Ivana Oborna
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, Palacky University Olomouc, Czech Republic
| | - Silvie Belaskova
- International Clinical Research Center, St. Anne's University Hospital Brno, Czech Republic
| | - Hana Konecna
- Faculty of Health and Social Studies, University of South Bohemia, Ceske Budejovice, Czech Republic
| | - David Rumpik
- Clinic of Reproductive Medicine and Gynecology Zlin, Czech Republic
| |
Collapse
|
20
|
Harper JC, Aittomäki K, Borry P, Cornel MC, de Wert G, Dondorp W, Geraedts J, Gianaroli L, Ketterson K, Liebaers I, Lundin K, Mertes H, Morris M, Pennings G, Sermon K, Spits C, Soini S, van Montfoort APA, Veiga A, Vermeesch JR, Viville S, Macek M. Recent developments in genetics and medically-assisted reproduction: from research to clinical applications †‡. Hum Reprod Open 2017; 2017:hox015. [PMID: 31486804 PMCID: PMC6276693 DOI: 10.1093/hropen/hox015] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/08/2017] [Accepted: 11/14/2017] [Indexed: 12/13/2022] Open
Abstract
Two leading European professional societies, the European Society of Human Genetics and the European Society for Human Reproduction and Embryology, have worked together since 2004 to evaluate the impact of fast research advances at the interface of assisted reproduction and genetics, including their application into clinical practice. In September 2016, the expert panel met for the third time. The topics discussed highlighted important issues covering the impacts of expanded carrier screening, direct-to-consumer genetic testing, voiding of the presumed anonymity of gamete donors by advanced genetic testing, advances in the research of genetic causes underlying male and female infertility, utilisation of massively-parallel sequencing in preimplantation genetic testing and non-invasive prenatal screening, mitochondrial replacement in human oocytes, and additionally, issues related to cross-generational epigenetic inheritance following IVF and germline genome editing. The resulting paper represents a consensus of both professional societies involved.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- J C Harper
- Institute for Women's Health, University College London, 86-96 Chenies Mews, London WC1E 6HX, UK
| | - K Aittomäki
- Laboratory of Genetics, Helsinki University Hospital, PO Box 720, FI-00029, Helsinki, Finland
| | - P Borry
- Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Centre for Biomedical Ethics and Law, KU Leuven, Kapucijnenvoer 35 - Box 7001. B-3000, Leuven Belgium
| | - M C Cornel
- Department of Clinical Genetics, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, VU University Medical Center, PO Box 7057, 1007 MB, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - G de Wert
- Department of Health, Ethics and Society, Research Schools CAPHRI and GROW, Maastricht University, De Byeplein 1, 6229 HA Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - W Dondorp
- Department of Health, Ethics and Society, Research Schools CAPHRI and GROW, Maastricht University, De Byeplein 1, 6229 HA Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - J Geraedts
- Department Genetics and Cell Biology, GROW School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Center, P.O. Box 616, 6200 MD Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - L Gianaroli
- S.I.S.Me.R. Reproductive Medicine Unit, Via Mazzini 12, 40138 Bologna, Italy
| | - K Ketterson
- Althea Science, Inc., 3 Regent St #301, Livingston, NJ 07039, USA
| | - I Liebaers
- Centre for Medical Genetics, UZ Brussel, Laarbeeklaan 101, B-1090 Brussels, Belgium
- Research Group Reproduction and Genetics, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Laarbeeklaan 101, B-1090, Brussels, Belgium
| | - K Lundin
- Reproductive Medicine, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Blå Stråket 6, 413 45, Göteborg, Sweden
| | - H Mertes
- Bioethics Institute Ghent, Department of Philosophy and Moral Science, Ghent University, Belgium
| | - M Morris
- Synlab Genetics, chemin d'Entre-Bois 21, CH-1018, Lausanne, Switzerland
| | - G Pennings
- Bioethics Institute Ghent, Department of Philosophy and Moral Science, Ghent University, Belgium
| | - K Sermon
- Research Group Reproduction and Genetics, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Laarbeeklaan 101, B-1090, Brussels, Belgium
| | - C Spits
- Research Group Reproduction and Genetics, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Laarbeeklaan 101, B-1090, Brussels, Belgium
| | - S Soini
- Helsinki Biobank, Helsinki University Central Hospital, Haartmaninkatu 3, PO Box 400, 00029 HUS, Helsinki, Finland
| | - A P A van Montfoort
- IVF laboratory, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Maastricht University Medical Center, PO Box 5800, 6202 AZ Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - A Veiga
- Barcelona Stem Cell Bank, Centre of Regenerative Medicine in Barcelona, Hospital Duran i Reynals, Gran Via de l' Hospitalet 199, 08908, Hospitalet de Llobregat, Barcelona, Spain
- Reproductive Medicine Service of Dexeus Woman Health, Gran Via Carles III, 71-75 - 08028 Barcelona, Spain
| | - J R Vermeesch
- Department of Human Genetics, KU Leuven, O&N I Herestraat 49 - Box 602, B-3000 Leuven, Belgium
| | - S Viville
- Institute of Parasitology and Pathology, University of Strasbourg, 3 rue Koberlé, 67000 Strasbourg, France
- Laboratory of Genetic Diagnostics, UF3472-Genetics of Infertility, Nouvel Hôpital Civil, 1 place de l'Hôpital, 67091 Strasbourg cedex, France
| | - M Macek
- Department of Biology and Medical Genetics, Charles University 2nd Faculty of Medicine and Motol University Hospital, V Úvalu 84, Prague CZ-15006, Czech Republic
| |
Collapse
|
21
|
Gebhardt AJ, Sydsjö G, Skoog Svanberg A, Indekeu A, Lampic C. Parenting stress and its association with perceived agreement about the disclosure decision in parents following donor conception. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2017; 96:968-975. [PMID: 28432827 PMCID: PMC5575676 DOI: 10.1111/aogs.13157] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/29/2022]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION For many donor-conceiving heterosexual parents, the process of deciding whether and what to tell children about their genetic origin is challenging. We hypothesized that incomplete couple agreement about disclosure could be associated with parenting stress. The aim of the study was to investigate: (1) parenting stress levels among heterosexual parents of young children following gamete donation and (2) whether parenting stress is related to perceived agreement about disclosure of the donor conception to the children. MATERIAL AND METHODS This study is part of the longitudinal multicenter Swedish Study on Gamete Donation and included a total of 213 heterosexual parents with children aged 1-4 years following oocyte donation (n = 103) and sperm donation (n = 110). Parents individually completed a questionnaire that included validated instruments on parenting stress (SPSQ) and relationship quality (ENRICH), as well as a study-specific measure on disclosure agreement. Multiple regression analysis was applied. RESULTS Incomplete couple agreement on disclosure to the children was not statistically significantly associated with increased levels of parenting stress. Relationship satisfaction consistently and significantly accounted for variation in parenting stress levels, indicating that relationship satisfaction had a buffering impact on parenting stress. CONCLUSIONS Parental stress does not appear to be negatively influenced by incomplete couple agreement about disclosure to children. As children grow up, reaching agreement about what to tell the child about the donor conception might become more relevant for couples' stress related to parenthood.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Anja J Gebhardt
- Division of Nursing, Department of Neurobiology, Care Sciences and Society, Karolinska Institutet, Huddinge, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - Gunilla Sydsjö
- Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden
| | | | - Astrid Indekeu
- Division of Nursing, Department of Neurobiology, Care Sciences and Society, Karolinska Institutet, Huddinge, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - Claudia Lampic
- Division of Nursing, Department of Neurobiology, Care Sciences and Society, Karolinska Institutet, Huddinge, Stockholm, Sweden
| |
Collapse
|
22
|
Zadeh S. Disclosure of donor conception in the era of non-anonymity: safeguarding and promoting the interests of donor-conceived individuals? Hum Reprod 2016; 31:2416-2420. [PMID: 27698073 DOI: 10.1093/humrep/dew240] [Citation(s) in RCA: 18] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/01/2016] [Revised: 08/07/2016] [Accepted: 08/22/2016] [Indexed: 12/15/2022] Open
Abstract
This article responds to a debate article published in Human Reproduction earlier this year. In that article, the authors suggested that parents should be encouraged to disclose the use of donor gametes to their children given rapid and widespread advances in genetic testing and sequencing. However, there is an urgent need to engage with the assertion that in this context, telling children about their donor conception both safeguards and promotes their interests, particularly if such disclosure is motivated by parents' anxieties about accidental discovery. Disclosure that is motivated by the notion of non-anonymity may also encourage parents to share misinformation about donors and encourage their children to have unrealistic expectations. Fertility professionals must remain mindful of these outcomes when discussing disclosure and the future implications of increasing access to genetic information with both prospective and current parents. It is strongly advised that future discussions about the end of donor anonymity are not conflated with the debate on disclosure.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sophie Zadeh
- Centre for Family Research, University of Cambridge, Free School Lane, Cambridge, CB2 3RQ, UK
| |
Collapse
|
23
|
Harper JC, Kennett D, Reisel D. The end of donor anonymity: how genetic testing is likely to drive anonymous gamete donation out of business. Hum Reprod 2016; 31:1135-40. [DOI: 10.1093/humrep/dew065] [Citation(s) in RCA: 95] [Impact Index Per Article: 11.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/10/2016] [Accepted: 03/02/2016] [Indexed: 12/11/2022] Open
|
24
|
Tallandini MA, Zanchettin L, Gronchi G, Morsan V. Parental disclosure of assisted reproductive technology (ART) conception to their children: a systematic and meta-analytic review. Hum Reprod 2016; 31:1275-87. [DOI: 10.1093/humrep/dew068] [Citation(s) in RCA: 35] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/29/2015] [Accepted: 02/22/2016] [Indexed: 11/12/2022] Open
|
25
|
Hertz R, Nelson MK. Acceptance and Disclosure: Comparing genetic symmetry and genetic asymmetry in heterosexual couples between egg recipients and embryo recipients. Facts Views Vis Obgyn 2016; 8:11-22. [PMID: 27822347 PMCID: PMC5096423] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/10/2022] Open
Abstract
This paper explores the attitudes and experiences of 203 women in heterosexual couples who conceived via donated eggs (145) or donated embryos (58) in the last 5 years. Online surveys were sent to former patients (from many different countries) of a private Spanish clinic. By comparing the women in heterosexual couples who relied on donated eggs with those who relied on donated embryos, we examined the meaning of the absence of a genetic tie to a child in the two different situations - that of "genetic symmetry" where neither parent has a genetic tie to that of "genetic asymmetry" where only the mother does not have a genetic tie. No existing study has yet shown whether women who rely on donated eggs and women who rely on donated embryos have similar or different attitudes towards issues surrounding the experience of non-genetic motherhood. Three issues are discussed: (1) attitudes toward the importance of genetic ties and genetic information from the donor before and after the birth of their children, (2) patterns of disclosure, and (3) the relationship between attitudes toward genetic information and disclosure decisions. This study showed that although the two groups of women have many of the same attitudes, including attitudes toward the importance of genes as determinants of outcomes for the child, egg recipients are more likely than embryo recipients to agree that the genetic origins are important to them and that their children have a right to know genetic information. We also found that those who conceived with donated eggs more frequently disclose the nature of their conception to their child than do those who conceived with donated embryos.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- R Hertz
- Wellesley College, 106 Central Street, Department of Sociology, Wellesley, MA 02481, USA
| | - MK Nelson
- Middlebury College, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Middlebury, VT 05753, USA
| |
Collapse
|
26
|
Zweifel JE. Donor conception from the viewpoint of the child: positives, negatives, and promoting the welfare of the child. Fertil Steril 2015; 104:513-9. [DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2015.06.014] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/30/2015] [Revised: 05/29/2015] [Accepted: 06/14/2015] [Indexed: 10/23/2022]
|
27
|
Kovacs GT, Wise S, Finch S. Keeping a child's donor sperm conception secret is not linked to family and child functioning during middle childhood: An Australian comparative study. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 2015. [PMID: 26223455 DOI: 10.1111/ajo.12349] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/30/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIM Controversy exists as to whether children conceived using donor sperm should be told about their origins and the possible deleterious effects of secrecy. MATERIALS AND METHODS The Follow-Up of Children Conceived through Donor Insemination research compares 'family functioning' and 'child well-being' in 62 families where donor-conceived children aged between 5 and 13 years had been 'told' (N = 29) and 'not told' (N = 33) of their genetic heritage. Couples were treated through the Prince Henry's Institute of Medical Research Reproductive Medicine Clinic. Standardised measures of family functioning and child well-being collected from mothers were modelled to estimate mean differences according to knowledge of conception. RESULTS Mean differences between the two 'knowledge of conception' groups were generally very small and not statistically significant; adjustment for covariates did not make a substantive difference to the interpretation of group differences. Scores on family functioning and child well-being measures were within normal limits for both the 'told' and 'not told' groups. CONCLUSION Further research on parents' experiences would usefully inform discussion on the forms of education and support that would encourage parents to engage with the issues of disclosure and nondisclosure, and promote transparency as well as societal awareness, acceptance and understanding of this method of family formation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Sarah Wise
- Department of Social Work, University of Melbourne, Carlton, Victoria, Australia
| | - Sue Finch
- Department of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Melbourne, Carlton, Victoria, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
28
|
Abstract
This article explores the practice of gamete donation in the U.S. having in mind the larger question of what do we as a society owe children born as a result (donor-conceived children). Do recipient-parents have a duty to tell their donor-conceived child about his/her genetic origins? Should the identity of the donor be disclosed or remain anonymous? Does the child have a right to know her conception story and to receive information, including identifying information, about the donor? Furthermore, if a donor-conceived child has a right to know, who has the duty to tell her/him about it? The Article underscores the ethical, legal and social dilemmas that arise, comparing and contrasting with international developments in this arena. It highlights the market-based and more specific medical justifications for regulating this field, explores the emerging so-called right of the child to know his/her genetic origins (“the right to know”), and considers the challenges such a right evokes to existing legal culture and principles of medical ethics in the U.S. as well as other broader societal implications of such a right.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Maya Sabatello
- Center for Research on Ethical, Legal and Social Implications of Psychiatric, Neurologic & Behavioral Genetics, Department of Psychiatry, Columbia University, 1051 Riverside Drive, New York, NY 10032, USA; Tel.: +1-646-774-8632
| |
Collapse
|