Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

News Around the World: The Reduction of Sperm Donor Candidates Due to the Abolition of the Anonymity Rule: Analysis of an Argument

  • Published:
Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

REFERENCES

  1. Cook R, Golombok S: A survey of semen donation: Phase II-The view of the donors. Hum Reprod 1995;10:951-959

    Google Scholar 

  2. Rowland R: Attitudes and opinions of donors on an artificial insemination by donor (AID) programme. Clin Reprod Fertil 1985;2:249-259

    Google Scholar 

  3. Purdie A, Peek JC, Adair V, Graham F, Fisher R: Attitudes of parents of young children to sperm donation-Implications for donor recruitment. Hum Reprod 1994;9:1355-1358

    Google Scholar 

  4. Daniels KR: Semen donors: Their motivations and attitudes to their offspring. J Reprod Infant Psychol 1989;7:121-127

    Google Scholar 

  5. Pedersen B, Nielsen AF, Lauritsen JG: Psychosocial aspects of donor insemination. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1994;73:701-705

    Google Scholar 

  6. Sauer MV, Gorrill MJ, Zeffer KB, Bustillo M: Attitudinal survey of sperm donors to an artificial insemination clinic. J Reprod Med 1989;34:362-364

    Google Scholar 

  7. Schover LR, Rothmann SA, Collins RL: The personality and motivation of semen donors: A comparison with oocyte donors. Hum Reprod 1992;7:575-579

    Google Scholar 

  8. Soderström-Anttila V: Follow-up study of Finnish volunteer oocyte donors concerning their attitudes to oocyte donation. Hum Reprod 1995;10:3073-2076

    Google Scholar 

  9. Baetens P, Pennings G, Kristoffersen I, Pletincx I, Devroey P: Provision of donor information to the offspring: The opinion of candidate semen donors, students, and fathers. Hum Reprod 1999;14:251. Abstr. Book 1

    Google Scholar 

  10. Cook R, Golombok S: A survey of semen donation: Phase II-the view of the donors. Hum Reprod 1995;10:951-959

    Google Scholar 

  11. British Andrology Society: Implementation of theWithdrawal of Payments To Semen Donors, 1998 [on-line]. Available: http://www.repromed.org.uk/bas/Bas2000/HFEA/bas18.html

  12. De Bruyn JK, De Graaff IA, Brewaeys A, Helmerhorst FM: Knowing the unknown: Donor insemination couple's choices for an anonymous/identifiable donor. Hum Reprod 1996;11:53-54. Abstr. Book 1

    Google Scholar 

  13. Back KW, Snowden R: The anonymity of the gamete donor. J Psychosom Obstet Gynecol 1988;9:191-1982

    Google Scholar 

  14. Daniels K, Lalos O: The Swedish insemination act and the availability of donors. Hum Reprod 1995;10:1871-1874

    Google Scholar 

  15. Trommelen M, den Otter M, van der Veen G: Bereidheid tot Donatie van Sperma bij Opheffing van de Anonimiteitswaarborg van de Donor. Den Haag, SWOKA, 1999

    Google Scholar 

  16. Heurckmans N, Pennings G, Sabbe K, Baetens P, Rigo A, Pletincs I, Devroey P, Ponjaert-Kristoffersen I: The attitude toward offspring by donor candidates and non-donors: The in-fluence of payment, age and fatherhood. Hum Reprod in press. Abstr. Book 1.

  17. Pennings G: The internal coherence of donor insemination practice: Attracting the right type of donor without paying. Hum Reprod 1997;12:1842-1844

    Google Scholar 

  18. Baran A, Pannor R: Lethal Secrets: The Psychology of Donor Insemination. New York, Amistad Press, 1993

    Google Scholar 

  19. Glover J: Fertility and the Family. London, Fourth Estate, 1989

    Google Scholar 

  20. Pennings G: Measuring the welfare of the child: In search of the appropriate evaluation principle. Hum Reprod 1999;14:1146-1150

    Google Scholar 

  21. Bogdan M: Artificial insemination in Swedish law. Comparative Law Yearbook 1988;10:91-106.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Pennings G: Should donors have the right to decide who receives their gametes? Hum Reprod 1995;10:2736-2740

    Google Scholar 

  23. Baran A, Pannor R: Lethal Secrets: The Psychology of Donor Insemination. New York, Amistad Press, 1993

    Google Scholar 

  24. Novaes SB: The medical management of donor insemination. In Donor Insemination, KR Daniels, E Haimes (eds), Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1998, pp 105-130

    Google Scholar 

  25. Schiff AR: Frustrated intentions and binding biology: Seeking AID in the law. Duke Law J 1994;44:524-570

    Google Scholar 

  26. Swanson HSW: Donor anonymity in artificial insemination: Is it still necessary? Columbia J Law Soc Probl 1993;27:151-190

    Google Scholar 

  27. Novaes SB: The medical management of donor insemination. In Donor Insemination, KR Daniels, E Haimes (eds), Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1998, pp 105-130

    Google Scholar 

  28. Schenker JG: Sperm, oocyte, and pre-embryo donation. J Ass Reprod Genet 1995;12:499-508

    Google Scholar 

  29. Pennings G: The 'double track' policy for donor anonymity. Hum Reprod 1997;12:2839-2844

    Google Scholar 

  30. Shenfield F: Privacy versus disclosure in gamete donation: A clash of interest, of duties, or an exercise in responsibility? J Ass Reprod Genet 1997;14:371-373

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Philosophy, Free University Brussels, Pleinlaan 2, Lok 5 C 442, B-1050, Brussels, Belgium

    Pennings Guido

Authors
  1. Pennings Guido
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Guido, P. News Around the World: The Reduction of Sperm Donor Candidates Due to the Abolition of the Anonymity Rule: Analysis of an Argument. J Assist Reprod Genet 18, 617–622 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1013169207315

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1013169207315

Keywords

Search

Navigation