Book contents
- Donor-Linked Families in the Digital Age
- Donor-Linked Families in the Digital Age
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Tables
- Contributors
- Acknowledgements
- Donor-Conceived Families
- Part I ‘DIY’ Donor Linking: Issues and Implications
- Part II Children’s and Adults’ Lived Experiences in Diverse Donor-Linked Families
- Part III Institutionalised Resistance to Openness
- Index
- References
Donor-Conceived Families
Relatedness and Regulation in the Digital Age
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 13 July 2023
Book contents
- Donor-Linked Families in the Digital Age
- Donor-Linked Families in the Digital Age
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Tables
- Contributors
- Acknowledgements
- Donor-Conceived Families
- Part I ‘DIY’ Donor Linking: Issues and Implications
- Part II Children’s and Adults’ Lived Experiences in Diverse Donor-Linked Families
- Part III Institutionalised Resistance to Openness
- Index
- References
Summary
How are siblings who were conceived using the same sperm or egg donor making connections in the absence of legal support? What is it like to discover you are part of a fifty plus donor sibling group? How are donor-conceived adults using new technologies to connect with their genetic family and explore their identity? This edited collection considers the donor-linking experiences of donor-conceived adults and children, recipient parents, and donors in a global context. It includes contributions from legal academics, social workers, sociologists, psychologists, and policy makers who work in the assisted conception field. As a result, it will be of particular interest to scholars of reproductive law, sociology, and digital media and reproductive technologies. It will also engage those following the debate around donor linking and the use of do-it-yourself technologies, including direct-to-consumer genetic testing and social media.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Donor-Linked Families in the Digital AgeRelatedness and Regulation, pp. 1 - 12Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2023
References
Blyth, E. (2012). Discovering the ‘facts of life’ following anonymous donor insemination. International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family, 26(2), 143–161. https://doi.org/10.1093/lawfam/ebs006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cosson, B., Dempsey, D., & Kelly, F. (2022). Secret shame – male infertility and donor conception in the wake of retrospective legislative change. Men and Masculinities, 25(3), 497–515. https://doi.org/10.1177/1097184x211038329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crawshaw, M., Daniels, K., Adams, D., Bourne, K., van Hooff, J. A. P., Kramer, W., … & Thorn, P. (2015). Emerging models for facilitating contact between people genetically related through donor conception: a preliminary analysis and discussion. Reproductive Biomedicine & Society Online, 1(2), 71–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbms.2015.10.001CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dempsey, D. (2010). Conceiving and negotiating reproductive relationships: lesbians and gay men forming families with children. Sociology, 44(6), 1145–1162. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0038038510381607CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dempsey, D. (2012a). More like a donor or more like a father? Gay men’s concepts of relatedness to children. Sexualities, 15(2), 156–174. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1363460711433735Google Scholar
Dempsey, D. (2012b). Gay male couples’ paternal involvement in lesbian-parented families. Journal of Family Studies, 18(2–3), 155–164. https://doi.org/10.5172/jfs.2012.18.2-3.155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dempsey, D., & Kelly, F. (2017). Transnational third-party assisted conception: pursuing the desire for ‘origins’ information in the internet era. Babies for Sale? Transnational Surrogacy, Human Rights and the Politics of Reproduction, 204–217. https://doi.org/10.5040/9781350218567.ch-011Google Scholar
Harper, J. C., Kennett, D., & Reisel, D. (2016). The end of donor anonymity: how genetic testing is likely to drive anonymous gamete donation out of business. Human Reproduction, 31(6), 1135–1140. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dew065CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hertz, R., & Nelson, M. K. (2018). Random Families: Genetic Strangers, Sperm Donor Siblings, and the Creation of New Kin. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelly, F. J., & Dempsey, D. J. (2016). Experiences and motives of Australian single mothers by choice who make early contact with their child’s donor relatives. Medical Law Review, 24(4), 571–590. https://doi.org/10.1093/medlaw/fww038Google ScholarPubMed
Kelly, F., & Dempsey, D. (2016). The family law implications of early contact between sperm donors and their donor offspring. Family Matters, (98), 56–63. https://doi.org/10.1093/lawfam/ebz011Google Scholar
McNair, R., & Dempsey, D. (2002). Exploring diversity in lesbian-parented families Paper 1: Family formation and women’s roles. Family Matters, (63), 40–49.Google Scholar
Nordqvist, P., & Smart, C. (2014). Relative Strangers: Family Life, Genes and Donor Conception. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137297648Google Scholar
Readings, J., Blake, L., Casey, P., Jadva, V., & Golombok, S. (2011). Secrecy, disclosure and everything in-between: decisions of parents of children conceived by donor insemination, egg donation and surrogacy. Reproductive Biomedicine Online, 22(5), 485–495. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2011.01.014CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Standlee, A. (2019). Friendship and online filtering: The use of social media to construct offline social networks. New Media & Society, 21(3), 770–785. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444818806844CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turner, A. J., & Coyle, A. (2000). What does it mean to be a donor offspring? The identity experiences of adults conceived by donor insemination and the implications for counselling and therapy. Human Reproduction, 15(9), 2041–2051. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/15.9.2041CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zadeh, S. (2016). Disclosure of donor conception in the era of non-anonymity: safeguarding and promoting the interests of donor-conceived individuals? Human Reproduction, 31(11), 2416–2420. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dew240Google Scholar
- 1
- Cited by