Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Office Andrology pp 109–126Cite as

Ethical and Legal Considerations of Donor Insemination in the United States

  • Chapter

  • 648 Accesses

Part of the book series: Contemporary Endocrinology ((COE))

Abstract

Donor insemination (DI) for humans was first reported in 1884, when not even the mother of the child conceived was informed that she had been inseminated with the sperm of another man (1). In 1945, Mary Barton, a gynecologist, published an article in the British Medical Journal about her DI program that copied the already established veterinary practice in animal husbandry (2) and was met with outrage and widespread condemnation of the practice. In response to Barton’s article, committees investigating DI generally recommended that it be considered a criminal offense (3). Reasons for rejecting the procedure included religious concerns, fears of eugenic implications, and the association of DI with agriculture (4). Sperm donors were viewed with suspicion, and the technique remained burdened in secrecy for four decades. It was not until the latter half of the 20th century that a rapid growth occurred in the use of DI for family building (5). By 1988, approx 80,000 women per year utilized DI, and more than 30,000 children were born each year in the United States (6). Despite the widespread use of DI, the majority of adults and children conceived are unaware that the person they know as their father is not their genetic parent. Secrecy continues to surround the practice of DI.

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

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   89.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Achilles R. Donor Insemination: An Overview. Royal Commission on New Reproductive Technologies, Ontario, 1992, p. 8.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Barton M, Walker K, Wiesner B. Artificial insemination. Brit Med J 1945;13:40–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Frith L. Gamete donation and anonymity: the ethical and legal debate. Hum Reprod 2001;16: 818–824.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Pfeffer N. Artificial insemination, in-vitro fertilization and the stigma of infertility. In: Stanworth M, ed. Reproductive Technologies: Gender, Motherhood, and Medicine. Cambridge: Polity Press; 1987:81–97.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Johnston I. The donor. In: Wood C, Leeton J, Kovacs G, eds. Artificial Insemination by Donor. Brown Prior Anderson, Melbourne, 1980, pp. 10–17.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Office of Technology Assessment. Infertility: Medical and Social Choices. United States Congress, Washington, DC, 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Cook R, Golombok S, Bish A, et al. Disclosure of donor insemination: parental attitudes. Am J Orthopsychiatr 1995;65:549–559.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Haimes E. Do clinicians benefit from gamete donor anonymity? Hum Reprod 1993:9:1518–1520.

    Google Scholar 

  9. The American Fertility Society. Therapeutic donor insemination: a guide for patients. The American Fertility Society, Birmingham, 1992; patient information series.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Snowden R, Mitchell GD, Snowden EM. Stigma and stress in AID. In: Artificial Reproduction: A Social Investigation. George Allen and Unwin, London, 1983, pp. 125–143.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Herz EK. Infertility and bioethical issues of the new reproductive technologies. Psychiatr Clin North Am 1989;12:117–131.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Schover LR, Collins RL, Richards S. Psychological aspects of donor insemination: evaluation and follow-up of recipient couples. Feril Steril 1992;57:583–590.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Dewar J. Fathers in law? The case of AID. In: Morgan D, Lee R, eds. Birthrights. Routledge: London, 1989;115–131.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Nijs P, Rouffa L. AID couples: psychological and psychopathological evaluation. Andrologia 1975;7: 187–194.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Amuzu B, Laxova R, Shapiro SS. Pregnancy outcome, health of children, and family adjustment after donor insemination. Obstet Gynecol 1190;75:899–905.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Haman J. Therapeutic donor insemination: a review of 440 cases. Cal Med 1959;90:130–133.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Czyba JC, Chevert M. Psychological reactions of couples to artificial insemination with donor sperm. Int J Fertil 1979;24:240–245.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Portnoy L. Artificial insemination. Fertil Steril 1956;7:327–340.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Levie L. An inquiry into the psychological effects on parents of artificial insemination with donor sperm. Eugenics Rev 1967;24:240–245.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Clayton C, Kovacs G. AID offspring: initial follow-up study of 50 couples. Med J Aust 1982; 1: 338,339.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Guttmacher AF. Role of artificial insemination in the treatment of sterility. Obstet Gynecol Surv 1960;15:767–785.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Kraus J, Quinn PE. Human artificial insemination—some social and legal issues. Med J Aust 1977;1:710–713.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Jackson MH. Artificial insemination (donor). Eugenics Rev 1957;48:205–209.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Warner MP. Artificial insemination review after thirty-two years experience. NY State J Med 1974;74: 2358–2361.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Nachtigall RD. Secrecy: an unresolved issue in the practice of donor insemination. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1993;168:1846–1851.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Karpel MA. Family secrets: 1. Conceptual and ethical issues in the relational context. 2. Ethical and practical considerations in therapeutic management. Fam Process 1980;19:295–306.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Lauritzen P. DI’s dirty little secret. Politics Life Sci 1993;12:188, 189.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Tefft SK. Secrecy: a cross-cultural perspective. Human Science Press, New York, 1980, p. 69.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Nachtigall RD, Becker G, Quiroga SS et al. The disclosure decision: concerns and issues of parents of children conceived through donor insemination. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1998;178: 1165–1170.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Turner A, Coyle A. What does it mean to be a donor offspring? The identity experiences of adults conceived by donor insemination and the implications for counseling and therapy. Hum Reprod 2000;15:2041–2051.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Snowden R, Snowden E. The gift of a child: a guide to donor insemination. University of Exeter Press, Exeter, 1993, p. 141.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Spiers J. Children’s rights to know their identity: social work perspective. In: Bruce N, Mitchel A, Priestley K, eds. Truth and the child: a contribution to the debate on the Warnock report. Family Care, Edinburgh, 1988, p. 37.

    Google Scholar 

  33. McGee G, Brakman S, Gurmankin A. Gamete disclosure and anonymity: disclosure to children conceived with donor gametes should not be optional. Hum Reprod 2001;16:2033–2038.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Sokoloff BZ. Alternative methods of reproduction: effects on the child. Clin Pediatr 1987; 26: 11–17.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Brandon J, Warner J. AID and adoption: some comparisons. Brit J Soc Work 1977;7:338–340.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Pannor R, Baran A. Open adoption as a standard practice. Child Welfare League of America 1984;63: 245–250.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Haimes E. Secrecy: what can artificial reproduction learn from adoption? Int J Law and the Family 1998;2:46–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Lamport A. The genetics of secrecy in adoption, artificial insemination, and in vitro fertilization. Am J Law Med 1988;14:109–124.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. MacIntyre J. Resolved: children should be told of their adoption before they ask. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psych 1990;29:828,829.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Berger D. Psychological aspects of donor insemination. Int J Psychiatry Med 1982;12:49–57.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Frith L. Beneath the rhetoric: the role of rights in the practice of non-anonymous gamete donation. Bioethics 2001;15:473–484.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Golombok S. New families, old values: considering the welfare of the child. Hum Reprod 1998;9: 2342–2347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Patrizio P, Mastroianni A, Mastroianni L. Gamete donation and anonymity: disclosure to children conceived with donor gametes should be optional. Hum Reprod 2001;16:2036–2038.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Klock SC. The controversy surrounding privacy or disclosure among donor gamete recipients. J Assist Reprod Genet 1997;14:378–380.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Main M, Kaplan N, Cassisy J. Security in infancy, childhood, and adulthood. Monogr Soc Res Child Dev 1985;50:233–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Berger D. Couples’ reactions to male infertility and donor insemination. Am J Psychiat 1980;137:1047–1049.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Clamar AJ. Psychological implications of the anonymous pregnancy. In: Offerman-Zuckenberg J, ed. Families in Transition: A New Frontier. Plenum Press, New York, 1989, pp. 111–120.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Connolly K, Edelman R, Cooke I, et al. The impact of infertility on psychological functioning. J Psychosom Res 1992;36:459–468.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Baran A, Pannor B. Lethal Secrets: The Psychology of Donor Insemination, Problem and Solution. Amistead Press, New York, 1993, p. 158.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Daniels K, Taylor K. Secrecy and openness in donor insemination. Politics Life Sci 1993; 12: 155–170.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Imber-Black E. Secrets in family and family therapy: an overview. In: Imber-Black E, ed. Secrets in Family and Family Therapy. W.W. Norton: New York, 1993, pp. 5–16.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Adair V, Purdie A. Donor insemination programs with personal donors: issues of secrecy. Hum Reprod 1996;11:2558–2563.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Bruce N. On the importance of genetic knowledge. Childr Soc 1990;4:183–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Rosenqvist H. Donor insemination: a prospective socio-psychiatric investigation of 48 couples. Dan Med Bull 1981;28:133–148.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Leeton J, Blackwell J. A preliminary psycho-social follow-up of parents and their children conceived by AID. Clin Reprod Fertil 1982;1:307–310.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  56. Milson I, Bergman P. A study of parental attitudes after donor insemination. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1982;61:125–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Kremer J, Frijling B, Nass J. Psychosocial aspects of parenthood by AI. Lancet 1984;i:628.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Brewaeys A. Review: parent-child relationships and child development in donor insemination families. Hum Reprod 2001;7:38–46.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  59. Humphrey M, Humphrey H. Marital relationships in couples seeking donor insemination. J Biosoc Sci 1987;19:209–219.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  60. Kloch S, Maier D. Psychological factors related to donor insemination. Fertil Steril 1991; 56: 489–495.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Kloch S, Jacob M, Maier D. A prospective study of donor insemination recipients: secrecy, privacy, and disclosure. Fertil Steril 1994;62:477–484.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Manuel C, Facy F, Choquet M, et al. Les risques psychologiques de la conception par IAD pour l’enfant. Neuropsychiatrie de l’enfance 1990;38:642–658.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Golombok S, Brewaeys A, Cook R, et al. The European study of assisted reproduction families: family functioning and child development. Hum Reprod 1996;11:2324–2331.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  64. Golombok S, Brewaeys A, Giavazzi MT, et al. The European study of assisted reproduction families: the transition to adolescence. Hum Reprod 2002:17;830–840.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  65. Golombok S, MacCallum F, Goodman E, et al. Families with children conceived by donor insemination: a follow-up at age twelve. Child Dev 2002:73;952–968.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Scheib HE, Riordan M, Rubin S. Choosing identity-release sperm donors: the parents’ perspective 13–18 years later. Hum Reprod 2003:18;1115–1127.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  67. Brewaeys A. Review: donor insemination, the impact on child and family development. J Psychosom Obstet Gynecol 1996:17;1–17.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  68. Klock S, Jacob M, Maier D. A comparison of single and married recipients of donor insemination. Hum Reprod 1996;11:2554–2557.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  69. Leblum SR, Aviv AL. Disclosure issues and decisions of couples who conceived via donor insemination. J Psychosom Obstet Gynecol 1997;18:292–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Rumball A, Adair V. Telling the story: parents’ scripts for donor offspring. Hum Reprod 1999; 14:1392–1399.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  71. Gottlieb C, Lalos O, Lindblad F. Disclosure of donor insemination to the child: the impact of Swedish legislation on couples’ attitudes. Hum Reprod 2000;15:52–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. McWhinnie A. Gamete donation and anonymity: should offspring from donated gametes continue to be denied knowledge of their origins and antecedents? Hum Reprod 2001;16: 807–817.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  73. Leiblum SR, Palmer MG, Spector IP. Non-traditional mothers: single heterosexual/lesbian women and lesbian couples electing motherhood via donor insemination. J Psychosom Obstet Gynecol 1995;16:11–20.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  74. Chan R, Raboy B, Patterson C. Psychosocial adjustment among children conceived via donor insemination by lesbian and heterosexual mothers. Child Dev 1998;69:443–457.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  75. Vanfraussen K, Ponjaert-Kristoffersen I, Brewaeys A. An attempt to reconstruct children’s donor concept: a comparison between children’s and lebian parents’ attitudes towards donor anonymity. Hum Reprod 2001;16:2019–2025.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  76. Gebhardt D. Sperm donor suffers years later from inherited disease. J Med Ethics 2002;28:213.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  77. Delatycki M. Sperm donor suffers years later from inherited disease: commentary. J Med Ethics 2002;28:214.

    Google Scholar 

  78. Pennings G. The double track policy for donor anonymity. Hum Reprod 1997;12:2839–2844.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  79. Daniels KR, Lewis GM. Openness of information in the use of donor gametes: developments in New Zealand. J Reprod Infant Psychol 1996;14:57–68.

    Google Scholar 

  80. United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Geneva, 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  81. The American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Ethical Considerations for Assisted Reproductive Technology. Available at http://www.asrm.org. Accessed October 22, 2003.

  82. Andrews L, Elster N. Adoption, reproductive technologies, and genetic information. J Law Med 1998;8:1–20.

    Google Scholar 

  83. Daniels KR, Lewis GM, Curson R. Information sharing in semen donation: the views of donors. Soc Sci Med 1997;44:673–680.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, OR

    Karen E. Adams MD, FACOG

Authors
  1. Karen E. Adams MD, FACOG
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Oregon Health and Science University, University Fertility Consultants, Portland, OR

    Phillip E. Patton MD  & David E. Battaglia PhD  & 

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2005 Humana Press Inc., Totowa, NJ

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Adams, K.E. (2005). Ethical and Legal Considerations of Donor Insemination in the United States. In: Patton, P.E., Battaglia, D.E. (eds) Office Andrology. Contemporary Endocrinology. Humana Press. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-59259-876-2_7

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-59259-876-2_7

  • Publisher Name: Humana Press

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-58829-318-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-59259-876-2

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation