Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A Right to Know

  • Chapter
Children’s Rights

  • 751 Accesses

Abstract

On a Friday night, I go to a bar to meet a friend who has told me she has had a terrible week and needs to unwind.1 When my friend arrives, she is wearing a very ugly dress; it accentuates all the wrong features and makes her look unattractive. After greeting me, she says “Do you like my dress? I just bought it today!” I smile, tell her she looks fantastic, and buy her a drink. In this, I pretend to like her outfit and pretend she looks good when in fact the truth is quite the opposite. Yet, in withholding the truth from her I have done her no harm, in fact I may have even done her some good. If I told her that she looked a wreck she may have sunk into further depression and failed to enjoy her night out; by choosing to tell her she looks fantastic I have spared her of the harm that may have resulted from learning the truth.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 119.99
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

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. This chapter was first published as an article in the International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family; thanks go to the editors for allowing it to appear in as a slightly revised version here. See Cowden, M. (2012) “No Harm, No Foul: A Child’s Right to Know Their Genetic Parents,” International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family, 26(1), 102–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. The study by Turkmendag also indicates that this is persuasive logic for parents in the United Kingdom. Potential parents are concerned about the potential adverse affects of disclosure on a child’s development. See Turkmendag,, I, Dingwall, R and Murphy, T. (2008) “The Removal of Donor Anonymity in the UK: The Silencing of Claims by Would-be-Parents,” International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family, 22(3), 298

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. I use “non-anonymous donation” to refer to countries or States whereby anonymous donation is not allowed. This is not to be confused with other systems, which may be considered “open” as both anonymous and non-anonymous donations are accepted, such as the “double track” system recommended by Pennings. See Pennings, G. (2007) “The Double Track Policy for Donor Anonymity,” Human Reproduction, 12(12), 2839–2844.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Dewar, J. (1989) “Fathers in Law? The Case of AID” in Lee, R. & Morgan, D. (eds), Birthrights: Law and Ethics at the Beginnings of Life, London: Routledge, 115–131.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  5. Firth, L. (2001) “Gamete Donation and Anonymity: The Ethical and Legal Debate,” Human Reproduction, 16, 818–824;

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Daniels, K. & Taylor, K. (1993) “Secrecy & Openness in Donor Insemination,” Political & Life Sciences, 12, 157–159.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Daniels, K. & Lalos, O. (1997) “The Swedish Insemination Act and the availability of donors,” Human Reproduction, 7, 1871–1874;

    Google Scholar 

  8. Turkmendag, et al. (2008) “The Removal of Donor Anonymity in the UK,” 288.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Blood, J., Pitt, P. & Parker, H. W. G. L (1998) “Parents’ Decision to Inform Children of their Donor: Sperm Conception and the Impact of a Register which legislated to enable Identification of Donors,” unpublished Paper, Royal Women’s Hospital and the University of Melbourne.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Turner, A. J. & Coyle, A. (2002) “What Does it Mean to be a Donor Offspring? The Identity Experience of Adults Conceived by Donor Insemination and the Implications for Counseling and Therapy,” Human Reproduction, 15, 2041–2051.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Szoke, H. (2003) “Australia—A Federated Structure Of Statutory Regulation of ART” in Gunning, J. & Szoke, H. (eds), The Regulation of Assisted Reproductive Technology, Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing Limited, 75–94.

    Google Scholar 

  12. During the 2010 Senate inquiry, the Attorney Generals’ department declined to provide legal advice on whether there exists a Commonwealth power within the constitution that would allow the Commonwealth to legislate in this area. Also see Schneller, E. A. (2005) “The Rights of Donor Inseminated Children to Know Their Genetic Origins in Australia,” Australian Journal of Family Law, 19, 228;

    Google Scholar 

  13. Szoke, H. (2003) “Australia—a Federated Structure Of Statutory Regulation of ART,” 75.

    Google Scholar 

  14. National Health and Medical Research Council (2007) “Ethical Guidelines on the Use of Assisted Reproductive Technology in Clinical Practice and Research,” available at: https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/_files_nhmrc/publications/ attachments/e78.pdf, Part B, 6.1, 25.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Blair, M. (2002) “The Impact of Family Paradigms, Domestic Constitutions and International Conventions on Disclosure of an Adopted Person’s Identities and Heritage: A Comparative Examination,” Michigan Journal of International Law, 22, 587.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Dennison, M. (2008) “Revealing Your Sources: The Case for Non-Anonymous Gamete Donation,” Journal of Law and Health, 21, 14.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Lamport, A. (1988) “The Genetics of Secrecy in Adoption, Artificial Insemination, and in Vitro Fertilization,” American Journal of Law and Medicine, 14, 109–124.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Dennison, M. (2008) “Revealing Your Sources,” 14;

    Google Scholar 

  19. McWhinnie, A. M. (1995) “A Study of Parenting of IVF and DI Children,” Medical Law, 14, 815.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Dennison, M. (2008) “Revealing Your Sources,” 14.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Schull, W. J. (1958) “Empirical Risks in Consanguineous Marriages: Sex Ration Malformation and Viability,” American Journal of Human Genetics, 10, 294–343.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Dennison, M. (2008) “Revealing Your Sources,” 15.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Sants, H. J. (1964) “Genealogical Bewilderment in Children with Substitute Parents,” British Journal of Medical Psychology, 37, 133–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Brodzinsky, D. M., Schechter, M. D. & Henig, R. M. (1992) Being Adopted: The Lifelong Search for Self. Doubleday, New York;

    Google Scholar 

  25. Krueger-Jago, M. J. & Hanna, F. J. (1997) “Why Adoptees Search: An Existential Treatment Perspective,” Journal of Counselling and Development, 75, 195–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. McWhinnie, A. M. (1995) “A Study of Parenting of IVF and DI Children”;

    Google Scholar 

  27. McGee, G., Brakman, S. V. & Gurmankin, A. D. (2001) “Gamete Donation and Anonymity: Disclosure to Children Conceived with Donor Gametes Should Not be Optional,” Human Reproduction, 16, 2033–2038;

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Dennison, M. (2008) “Revealing Your Sources.”

    Google Scholar 

  29. Shenfield, F. (1994) “Ethics and Society: Filiation in Assisted Reproduction: Potential Conflicts and Legal Implications,” Human Reproduction, 12, 1348–1354;

    Google Scholar 

  30. Turkmendag et al. (2008) “The Removal of Donor Anonymity in the UK.”

    Google Scholar 

  31. Scheib, J. E., Riordan, M. & Rubiri, S. (2003) “Choosing Identity—Release Sperm Donors: The Parents Perspective 13–18 Years Later,” Human Reproduction, 18, 1115–1127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Turner, A. J. & Coyle, A. (2002) “What Does it Mean to be a Donor Offspring?,” 2050.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Golombok, S., Brewaeys, A., Cook, R., Giavazzi, M. T., Guerra, D., Manovani, A., van Hall, E., Crosignani, P. G. & Dexeus, S. (1996) “The European Study of Assisted Reproduction Families: Family Functioning and Child Development,” Human Reproduction, 11, 2324–2331;

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Golombok, S., Maccallum, F., Goodman, E. & Rutter, M. (2002) “Families with Children Conceived by Donor Insemination: A Follow up at Age 12,” Child Development, 73, 952–958;

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Golombok, S., Brewaeys, A., Giavazzi, M., Guerra, D., MacCullum, F. & Rusi, J. (2002) “The European Study of Assisted Reproduction Families; the transition to Adolescence,” Human Reproduction, 17, 830–840;

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Scheib, J. E., Riordan, M. & Rubiri, S. (2003) “Choosing Identity.”

    Google Scholar 

  37. Gottlieb, C., Othorn, L. & Lindblad, F. (2000) “Disclosure of Donor Insemination to the Child: The Impact of Swedish Legislation on Couples’ Attitudes,” Human Reproduction, 15, 2052–2056.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. In fact, this was one of the “selling points” of gamete donation. Dr Finegold explained that when presenting the reasons for preferring artificial insemination over adoption he would explain to prospective parents that, “To his friends, the husband has finally impregnated his wife … in AI (Artificial Insemination) the child is never told.” See Finegold, W. J. (1964) “Artificial Insemination,” Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas Publisher.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Mill, J. S. (1985) On Liberty (1859), London: Penguin, 22.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Feinberg, J. (1985) Harm to Others: The Moral Limits of the Criminal Law, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 145–146.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Feinberg, J. (1987) “Wrongful Life and the Counterfactual Element in Harming,” Social Philosophy and Policy 4(1), 147.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Golombok, S., Brewaeys, A., Cook, R., Giavazzi, M. T., Guerra, D., Manovani, A., van Hall, E., Crosignani, P. G. & Dexeus, S. (1996) “The European Study of Assisted Reproduction Families,” 2324–2331.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Feinberg, J. (1987) “Wrongful Life,” 149.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Vanfraussen, K., Ponjaert-Kristoffersen, I. & Brewaeys, A. (2000) “An Attempt to Reconstruct Children’s Donor Concept: A Comparison Between Children’s and Lesbian Parents’ Attitudes Towards Donor Anonymity,” Human Reproduction, 16, 2019–2025.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Archard, D. (2007) “The Wrong of Rape,” The Philosophical Quarterly, 57, 371–393.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Golombok, S., Murray, C., Brisden, P. & Abdalla, H. (1999) “Social vs Biological Parenting: Family Functioning and the Socio-Emotional Development of Children Conceived by Egg or Sperm Donation,” Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 40, 519–527.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Daniels, K. & Taylor, K. (1993) “Secrecy & Openness in Donor Insemination,” Political & Life Sciences, 12(155), 380.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Manuel, C., Chevret, M. & Cyzba, J. (1980) “Handling of Secrecy by AID Couples.” In David, G. & Price, W. (eds), Human Artificial Insemination and Semen Preservation, New York: Plenum Press, 419–429;

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  49. Lasker, J. N. & Borg, S. (1989) In Search of Parenthood. Coping with Infertility and High Tech Conception, Sydney: Pandora;

    Google Scholar 

  50. Klock, S. C. & Maier, D. (1991) “Psychological Factors Related to Donor Insemination,” Fertility Sterility, 56, 489–495.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Brewaeys, A. (1996) “Donor Insemination and Child Development,” Journal of Psychosomatic Obstetrics & Gynecology, 17, 1–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Baran, A. & Panor, R. (2003) Lethal Secrets. The Psychology of Donor Insemination Problems and Solutions, 2nd Edition, New York: Amistad.

    Google Scholar 

  53. McGee, G., Brakman, S. V. & Gurmankin, A. D. (2001) “Gamete Donation and Anonymity: Disclosure to Children Conceived with Donor Gametes Should Not be Optional,” Human Reproduction, 16, 2033–2038.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Daniels, K. and Lalos, O. (1997) “The Swedish Insemination Act and the Availability of Donors.”

    Google Scholar 

  55. Johnson, L. & Kane, H. (2007) “Regulation of Donor Conception and the “time to tell” Campaign,” Journal of Law and Medicine, 15(1), 125.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Gardner, J. & Shute, S. (2000) “The Wrongness of Rape” in Horder, J. (ed.), Oxford Essays in Jurisprudence, Fourth Series, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 193–217.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Darwall, S. L. (1977) “Two Kinds of Respect,” Ethics 88, 38

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Teitelbaum, L. E. (1998) “Children’s Rights and the Problem of Equal Respect,” Hofstra Law Review, 27, 799

    Google Scholar 

  59. It has not always been the case that respect for persons entailed that a “person” must be autonomous. See Lysaught, M. T. (2004) “Respect: Or, How Respect for Persons Became Respect for Autonomy,” Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, 29(6), 665–680.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Darwall, S. L. (2000), “Two Kinds of Respect,” 40.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Newman, J. L., Roberts, L. R. & Syre, C. R. (1993) “Concepts of Family Among Children and Adolescents: Effect of Cognitive Level, Gender and Family Structure,” Developmental Psychology, 29, 952–962;

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Brodzinsky, D. M., Lang, R. & Smith, D. W. (1995) “Parenting Adopted Children” in Bornstein, M. H. (ed.) Handbook of Parenting, Vol. 3 Status and Social Conditions of Parenting, Mahwah: New Jersey, 209–232.

    Google Scholar 

  63. See Baran, A. & Panor, R. (2003) Lethal Secrets;

    Google Scholar 

  64. McWhinnie, A. M. (1995) “A Study of Parenting of IVF and DI Children”;

    Google Scholar 

  65. Triesliotis, J. (1988) “Identity and Genealogy” in Bruce, N., Mitchell, A. & Priestly, K. (eds), Truth and the Child: A Contribution to the Debate on the Warnock Report, Edinburgh: Family Care.

    Google Scholar 

  66. Rothman, B. K. (1989) Recreating Motherhood: Ideology and Technology in a Patriarchal Society, New York: Norton; McEwan, J. E. (2003) “Genetic Information, Ethics, and Information Relating to Biological Parenthood,” Encyclopedia of Ethical, Legal and Policy Issues in Biotechnology, 356–363.

    Google Scholar 

  67. Bellis, M. A., Hughes, K., Hughes, S. & Ashton, J. R. (2005) “Measuring Paternal Discrepancy and its Public Health Consequences,” Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 59, 749–754.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Schneller, E. A. (2005) “The Rights of Donor Inseminated Children to Know Their Genetic Origins in Australia,” Australian Journal of Family Law, 19, 233.

    Google Scholar 

  69. Goldstein, J., Freud, A. & Solnit, A. J. (1979) Beyond the Best Interests of the Child, New York: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. Mhairi Cowden
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Copyright information

© 2016 Mhairi Cowden

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Cowden, M. (2016). A Right to Know. In: Children’s Rights. Palgrave Macmillan, New York. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137492296_7

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137492296_7

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, New York

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-349-55585-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-137-49229-6

  • eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation