Biomedical papers - Ahead of Print

Biomed Pap Med Fac Univ Palacky Olomouc Czech Repub. X:X | 10.5507/bp.2017.050

The attitudes of IVF patients treated in the Czech Republic towards informing children born after gamete donation

Tatana Rumpikovaa,b, Ivana Obornab, Silvie Belaskovac, Hana Konecnad, David Rumpika
a Clinic of Reproductive Medicine and Gynecology Zlin, Czech Republic
b Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, Palacky University Olomouc, Czech Republic
c International Clinical Research Center, St. Anne's University Hospital Brno, Czech Republic
d Faculty of Health and Social Studies, University of South Bohemia, Ceske Budejovice, Czech Republic

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.

Keywords: gamete donation, anonymity, open identity, parenting, donor's offspring

Received: March 21, 2017; Accepted: November 13, 2017; Prepublished online: December 4, 2017


References

  1. Appleby J, Blake L, Freeman T. Is disclosure in the best interests of children conceived by donation? In: Richards M, Pennings G, Appleby JB, (eds). Reproductive Donation: Practice, Policy and Bioethics. Cambridge; 2012, p.231-249. ISBN 9780521189934.
  2. Pennings G, de Wert G, Shenfield F, Cohen J, Tarlatzis B, Devroey P. ESHRE Task Force on Ethics and Law 15: Cross-border reproductive care. Hum Reprod 2008;23:2182-4. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  3. UZIS/NRAR. Asistovaná reprodukce v České republice 2014. Praha; 2014, p.25-27. ISBN 9788074721489.
  4. Daniels KR, Taylor K. Secrecy and openness in donor insemination. Polit Life Sci 1993;12:155-70. Go to original source...
  5. Blyth E, Frith L. Donor-conceived people's access to genetic and biographical history: an analysis of provisions in different jurisdictions permitting disclosure of donor identity. Int J Law Policy Family 2009;23(2):174-91. Go to original source...
  6. Freeman T, Zadeh S, Smith, V, Golombok S. Disclosure of sperm donation: a comparison between solo mother and two-parent families with identifiable donors. Reprod BioMed Online 2016;33(5):592-600. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  7. Daniels KR, Grace VM, Gillett WR. Factors associated with parents' decisions to tell their adult offspring about the offspring's donor conception. Hum Reprod 2011;26(10):2783-90. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  8. Blyth E. How it feels to be a child of donor insemination. BMJ, 2002;234:797. Go to original source...
  9. Daniels KR, Thorn P. Sharing information with donor insemination offspring: A child-conception versus a family building approach. Hum Reprod 2001;16(9):1792-6. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  10. Blake L, Jadva V, Golombok, S. Parent psychological adjustment, donor conception and disclosure: a follow-up over 10 years. Hum Reprod 2014;29(11):2487-96. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  11. Readings J, Blake L, Casey P, Jadva V, Golombok S. Secrecy, disclosure and everything in- between: decisions of parents of children conceived by donor insemination, egg donation and surrogacy. Reprod Biomed Online 2011;22(5):485-95. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  12. Sälevaara M, Suikkari AM, Söderström-Anttila V. Attitudes and disclosure decisions of Finnish parents with children conceived using donor sperm. Human Reprod 2013;28(10):2746-54. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  13. Applegarth LD, Kaufman NL, Josephs-Sohan M, Christos PJ, Rosenwaks Z. Parental disclosure to offspring created with oocyte donation: intentions versus reality. Hum Reprod 2016;31(8):1809-15. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  14. Lyccet E, Daniels K, Curson R, Golombok S. School-aged children of donor insemination: a study of parents'disclosure patterns. Hum Reprod 2005;20(3):810-9. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  15. Söderström-Anttila V, Sälevaara M, Suikkari, AM. Increasing openness in oocyte donation families regarding disclosure over 15 years. Human Reprod 2010;25(10):2535-42. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  16. Laruelle C, Place I, Demeestere I, Englert Y. Anonymity and secrecy options of recipient couples and donors, and ethic origin influence in three types of oocyte donation. Hum Reprod 2011;26(2):382-90. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  17. Murray C, MacCallum F, Golombok S. Egg donation parents and their children: Follow-up at age 12 years. Fertil Steril 2006;85(3):610-8. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  18. Indekeu A, Dierickx K, Schotsmans P, Daniles KR, Rober P, D' Hoodghe R. Factors contributing to parental decision-making in disclosing donor conception: a systematic review. Hum Reprod Update 2013;19(6):714-33. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  19. Greenfeld DA, Klock S. Disclosure decisions among known and anonymous oocyte donation recipients. Fertil Steril 2004;81(6):1565-71. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  20. Bowlby J. Attachment and loss, Vol. 1: Attachment. New York: Basic Books; 1969.
  21. Bowlby J. Attachment and loss, Vol. 2: Separation. New York: Basic Books; 1973.
  22. Matějček Z. O rodině vlastní, nevlastní a náhradní. Praha: Portál;1994. ISBN 8085282836. (In Czech)
  23. Matějček Z, Bubleová V, Kovařík J. Pozdní následky psychické deprivace. Praha: PCP; 1997. ISBN 8085121891. (In Czech)
  24. Isaksson S, Skoog-Svanberg A, Sydsjo G, Linell L, Lampic, C. It takes two to tango: information sharing with offspring among heterosexual parents following identifiable sperm donation. Hum Reprod 2016;31(1):125-32. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  25. Lalos A, Gottlieb C, Lalos O. Legislated right for donor-insemination children to know their genetic origin: A study of parental thinking. Hum Reprod 2007;22(6):1759-68. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  26. Cahn, N. Accidental Incest: Drawing the Line-or the Curtain-for Reproductive Technology. Harv J L & Gender 2009;32:59-107.
  27. Sawyer, N. Sperm donor limits that control for the 'relative' risk associated with the use of open-identity donors. Hum Reprod 2010;25(5):1084-96. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  28. Ravitski V. Knowing Where You Come From: The Rights of Donor-Conceived Individuals and the Meaning of Genetic Relatedness. Minnesota J Law Science Technology 2010;11:655-84.
  29. 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(5):807-17. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  30. Velleman JD. Persons on prospect. Philosophy & Public Affairs 2008;36:21-288.
  31. Konečná H, Klůfa J, Doskočil O, Bubleová V. Anonymní dárcovství gamet a anonymní porody: společné eticko-psychosociální a právní aspekty. (Anonymous donation of gametes and anonymous births: common ethical, psychosocial and legal aspects). Praktický lékař 2012;92(10):498-502. (In Czech)
  32. Konečná H. O "negenetickém" rodičovství trochu jinak. Vydalo Středisko náhradní rodinné péče, Praha 2012. ISBN 978-80-87455-11-1. (In Czech)
  33. Sabatello M. Regulating Gamete Donation in the U.S.: Ethical, Legal and Social Implications. Laws 2015;4(3):352-76.
  34. Ravelingien A, Provoost, V, Pennings, G. Donor-conceived children looking for their sperm donor: what do they want to know? FVV in OBGYN 2013;5(4):257-64.
  35. Golombok S, Brewaeys A, Cook R, Giavazzi MT, Guerra D, Mantovani A, van Hall E, Crosiqnati PG, Dexeus S. The European Study of Assisted Reproduction Families. Hum Reprod 1996;11(10):2324-31. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  36. Golombok S, Brewaeys A, Giavazzi MT, Guerra D, MacCallum F, Rust J. The European Study of Assisted Reproduction Families: The transition to adolescence. Hum Reprod 2002;17(3):830-40. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  37. Golombok S, Readings J, Blake L, Casey P, Mellish L, Marks A, Jadva V. Children conceived by gamete donation. The impact of opennes about donor conception on psychological adjustment and parent-child relationships at age 7. J Fam Psychol 2011;25(2):230-9. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  38. Golombok S, Blake L, Casey P, Roman G, Jadva V. Children Born Through Reproductive Donation: A Longitudinal Study of Psychological Adjustment. J Child Psychol Psychiatry 2013;54(6):653-660. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  39. Hacking I. The Social Construction of What? Harvard University Press; November 2000. ISBN 9780674004122.
  40. Berger, P, Luckmann, T. Sociální konstrukce reality: Pojednání o sociologii vědění. Praha: Centrum pro studium demokracie a kultury; 1999. ISBN 8085959461.