Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T18:54:14.282Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

III - Third Party Reproduction: Assessment and Preparation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 November 2022

Edited by
Sharon N. Covington
Sharon N. Covington
Affiliation:
Shady Grove Fertility, Rockville, MD
Get access

Summary

A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
Fertility Counseling: Clinical Guide , pp. 97 - 152
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2022

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References

Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine and the Practice Committee for the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology. Guidance regarding gamete and embryo donation. Fertil Steril 2021;115(6):1395–1410.Google Scholar
Harper, JC, Kennett, D, Reisel, D. The end of donor anonymity: how genetic testing is likely to drive anonymous donation out of business. Hum Reprod 2016;31(6):1135–1140.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Turner, AJ, Coyle, A. 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. Hum Reprod 2000;15(9):2041–2051.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Isaksson, S, Skoog-Svanberg, A, Sydsio, G, et al. It takes two to tango: information-sharing with offspring among heterosexual parents following identity-release sperm donation. Hum Reprod 2016; 31(1):125–132.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ilioi, E, Blake, L, Vasanti, J, et al. The role of age of disclosure of biological origins in the psychological wellbeing of adolescents conceived by reproductive donation: a longitudinal study from age 1 to age 14. J Child Psychol Psychiatry 2017;58(3):315–324.Google Scholar
Zadeh, S, Illioi, EC, Jadva, V, et al. The perspective of adolescents conceived using surrogacy, egg or sperm donation. Hum Reprod 2018; 33(6):1099–1106.Google Scholar
Becker, G, Butler, A, Nachtigall, RD. Resemblance talk: a challenge for parents whose children were conceived with donor gametes in the US. Soc Sci Med 2005;61:1300–1309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Culley, L, Hudson, N, Rapport, F. Assisted conception and South Asian Communities in the UK: public perceptions of the use of donor gametes in infertility treatment. Hum Fertil 2013;16(1):48–53.Google Scholar
Homanen, R. Reproducing whiteness and enacting kin in the Nordic context of transnational egg donation: matching donors with cross-border traveller recipients in Finland. Soc Sci Med 2018;203:28–34.Google Scholar
Moll, T. Making a match: curating race in South African gamete donation. Med Anthropol 2019;38(7):588–602.Google Scholar
Hadizadeh-Talasaz, F, Simbar, M, Latifnejad Roudsari, R. Exploring infertile couples’ decisions to disclose donor conception to the future child. Int J Fertil Steril 2020; 14(3):240–246.Google Scholar
Miettinen, A, Rotkirch, A, Suikkari, AM, et al. Attitudes of anonymous and identity-release oocyte donors towards future contact with donor offspring. Hum Reprod 2019;34(4):672–678.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
De Melo-Martin, I, Rubin, LR, Cholst, IN. “I want us to be a normal family”: toward an understanding of the functions of anonymity among U.S. oocyte donors and recipients. AJOB Empir Bioth 2018;9(4):235–251.Google Scholar
Pasch, LA. New realities for the practice of egg donation: a family-building perspective. Fertil Steril 2018;110(7):1194–1202.Google Scholar
Benward, JM. Disclosure: helping families talk about assisted reproduction. In: Covington, SN, Ed. Fertility Counseling: Clinical Guide and Case Studies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015, 252–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

References

Applegarth, LD, Kingsberg, SA. The donor as patient: assessment and support. In: Covington, SN, Burns, LH, Eds. Infertility Counseling: A Handbook for Clinicians, 2nd ed. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2006, 339–355.Google Scholar
International Federation of Fertility Societies’ Surveillance (IFFS) 2019: Global Trends in Reproductive Policy and Practice, 8th ed. Global Reprod Health 2019;4(1):29.Google Scholar
Braverman, AM. Mental health counseling in third-party reproduction in the United States: evaluation, psychoeducation, or ethical gatekeeping? Fertil Steril 2015;104(3):501–506.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine and the Practice Committee of the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology: Guidance regarding gamete and embryo donation. Fertil Steril 2021;115(6):1395–1410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ESHRE: Task Force on Ethics and Law. Gamete and embryo donation. Hum Reprod 2002;17:1407–1408.Google Scholar
Guidelines for counseling in infertility [Online]. Available from: www.eshre.euGoogle Scholar
Pasch, LA. New realities for the practice of egg donation: a family-building perspective. Fertil Steril 2018;110(7):1194–1202.Google Scholar
Skillern, A, Cedars, M, Huddleston, H. Egg donor informed consent tool (EDICT): development and validation of a new informed consent tool for oocyte donors. Fertil Steril 2013;99:1733–1738.Google Scholar
Samplaski, M, Klipstein, S. There is no such thing as anonymity: loss of donor sperm anonymity in the era of direct to consumer (DTC) genetic testing. Fertility and Sterility, Editorial Office, American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Available from: www.fertstertdialog.com/posts/there-is-no-such-thing-as-anonymity-loss-of-donor-sperm-anonymity-in-the-era-of-direct-to-consumer-dtc-genetic-testing [last accessed June 16, 2022].Google Scholar
Harper, JC, Kennett, D, Reisel, D. The end of donor anonymity: how genetic testing is likely to drive anonymous gamete donation out of business. Hum Reprod 2016;31(6):1135–1140.Google Scholar
Van den Broeck, U, Vandermeeren, M, Vanderschueren, D, Enzlin, P, Demyttenaere, K, D’Hooghe, T. A systematic review of sperm donors: demographic characteristics, attitudes, motives and experiences of the process of sperm donation. Hum Reprod Update 2013;19(1):1–15.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Purewal, S, van den Akker OBA. Systematic review of oocyte donation: investigating attitudes, motivations and experiences. Hum Reprod Update 2009;15:499–515.Google Scholar
Jadva, V, Freeman, T, Kramer, W, Golombok, S. Sperm and oocyte donors’ experiences of anonymous donation and subsequent contact with donor offspring. Hum Reprod 2011;26:638–646.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Provoost, V, Van Rompuy, F, Pennings, G. Non-donors’ attitudes towards sperm donation and their willingness to donate. J Assist Reprod Genet 2018;35(1):107–118.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lampic, C, Skoog Svanberg, A, Sydsjö, G. Attitudes towards disclosure and relationship to donor offspring among a national cohort of identity-release oocyte and sperm donors. Hum Reprod 2014;29(9):1978–1986.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bracewell-Milnes, T, Saso, S, Bora, S, et al. Investigating psychosocial attitudes, motivations and experiences of oocyte donors, recipients and egg sharers: a systematic review. Hum Reprod Update 2016;22(4):450–465.Google Scholar
Kirkman, M, Bourne, K, Fisher, J, Johnson, L, Hammarberg, K. Gamete donors’ expectations and experiences of contact with their donor offspring. Hum Reprod 2014;29(4):731–738.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hammarburg, K, Carmichael, M, Tinney, L, Mulder, A. Gamete donors’ and recipients’ evaluation of donor counseling: a prospective longitudinal cohort study. Aust N Z J Gynaecol 2008;48:601–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miettinen, A, Rotkirch, A, Suikkari, AM, Söderström-Anttila, V. Attitudes of anonymous and identity-release oocyte donors towards future contact with donor offspring. Hum Reprod 2019;34(4):672–678.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Daniels, K, Lalos, O. The Swedish Insemination Act and the availability of donors. Hum Reprod 1995;7:1871–1874.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

References

Lyerly, AD, Steinhauser, K, Namey, E, et al. Factors that affect infertility patients’ decisions about disposition of frozen embryos. Fertil Steril 2006;85:1623–1630.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Deniz, S, Hughes, E, Neal, M, Faghih, M, Amin, S, Karnis, M. Are health care providers adequately educating couples for embryo disposition decisions? Fertil Steril 2016;105(3):684–689.Google Scholar
Lyerly, AD, Steinhauser, K, Voils, C, et al. Fertility patients’ views about frozen embryo disposition: results of a multi-institutional U.S. survey. Fertil Steril 2008;93(2):499–509.Google Scholar
McMahon, C, Saunders, D. Attitudes of couples with stored frozen embryos toward conditional embryo donation. Fertil Steril 2009;91(1):140–147.Google Scholar
Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Defining embryo donation: an Ethics Committee opinion. Fertil Steril 2016;106(1):15–282.Google Scholar
ASRM Ethics Committee Opinion Fertility and Sterility. Interest, obligation and rights in gamete and embryo donation. Fertil Steril 2019;111(4):15–282.Google Scholar
Global Reproductive Health. International Federation of Fertility Societies’ Surveillance (IFFS) 2019: Global Trends in Reproductive Policy and Practice. 2019.Google Scholar
Nachtigall, RD, Becker, G, Friese, C, Butler, A, MacDougall, K. Parents’ conceptualization of their frozen embryos complicates the disposition decision. Fertil Steril 2005;84(2):431–434.Google Scholar
McMahon, C, Gibson, F, Cohen, J, Leslie, G, Tennant, C, Saunders, D. Mothers conceiving through in vitro fertilization: siblings, setbacks, and embryo dilemmas. Reprod Technol 2000;10 :131–135.Google Scholar
Stiel, M, McMahon, C, Elwyn, G, Boivin, J. Pre-birth characteristics and 5-year follow-up of women with cryopreserved embryos after successful in vitro fertilisation treatment. J Psychosom Obstet Gynaecol 2010;31(1):32–39.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Golombok, S. We Are Family: The Modern Transformation of Parents and Children. New York, NY: Public Affairs, 2020.Google Scholar
Golombok, S. Modern Families: Parents and Children in New Family Forms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015.Google Scholar
International Federation of Fertility Societies’ Surveillance (IFFS) 2019: Global Trends in Reproductive Policy and Practice. Global Reprod Health 2019;4(1):29.Google Scholar
American Society for Reproductive Medicine. White Paper: Access to Care Summit. 2015. Available from: www.asrm.org/globalassets/asrm/asrm-content/news-and-publications/news-and-research/press-releases-and-bulletins/pdf/atcwhitepaper.pdf [last accessed June 16, 2022].Google Scholar
Quinn, M, Fujimoto, V. Racial and ethnic disparities in assisted reproductive technology access and outcomes. Fertil Steril 2016;105:1119–1123.Google Scholar
Human Fertilization & Embryology Authority. Ethnic Diversity in Fertility Treatment 2018: UK Ethnicity Statistics for IVF and DI Fertility Treatment. 2021. Available from: www.hfea.gov.uk/about-us/publications/research-and-data/ethnic-diversity-in-fertility-treatment-2018/ [last accessed June 16, 2022].Google Scholar
EMPOWER with Moxi. Video 4: The Empower Method (Video Series]). 2019. Available from: www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYujv07ELxY [last accessed June 16, 2022].Google Scholar
Feingold, ML. Infertility, Reproductive Medicine, and the Role of the Psychologist. 2007. Available from: www.madelinefeingoldphd.com/infertility-reproductive-medicine-and-the-role-of-the-psychologist/ [last accessed June 16, 2022].Google Scholar
Klock, SC, Sheinin, S, Kazer, RR. The disposition of unused frozen embryos [letter]. N Engl J Med 2001;345:69–70.Google Scholar
de Lacey, S. Parent identity and ‘virtual’ children: why patients discard rather than donate unused embryos. Hum Reprod 2005;20(6):1661–1669. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/deh831Google Scholar
Baran, A, Pannor, R. Lethal Secrets: The Psychology of Donor Insemination: Problems and Solutions. Las Vegas, NV: Triadoption Publications, 2008.Google Scholar
Erikson, EH. Identity and the Life Cycle: Selected Papers. New York, NY: International Universities Press, 1959.Google Scholar

References

American Society for Reproductive Medicine Ethics Committee. Considerations of the gestational carrier: an Ethics Committee Opinion. Fertil Steril 2018;110(6):1017–1021.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Assisted reproductive technology national summary report. 2019. Available at: www.cdc.gov/art/pdf/2016-national-summary-slides/ART_2016_graphs_and_charts.pdf [last accessed June 16, 2022].Google Scholar
Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology. IVF Success: 2019 preliminary national data. 2019. Available at: www.sartcorsonline.com/rptCSR_PublicMultYear.aspx?reportingYear=2019 [last accessed June 16, 2022].Google Scholar
Kim, HH. Selecting the optimal gestational carrier: medical, reproductive, and ethical considerations. Fertil Steril 2020;113(5):892–896.Google Scholar
Simpson, TH, Hanafin, H. Counseling surrogate carrier participants. In: Covington, SN, Ed. Fertility Counseling: Clinical Guide and Case Studies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015, 122–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klock, SC, Lindheim, SR. Gestational surrogacy: medical, psychosocial, and legal considerations. Fertil Steril 2020;113(5):889–891.Google Scholar
American Society for Reproductive Medicine Practice Committee. Recommendations for practices utilizing gestational carriers: an ASRM Practice Committee guideline. Fertil Steril 2017;107:e3–e10.Google Scholar
Shenfield, F, Pennings, G, Cohen, J, Devroey, P, de Wert, G, Tarlatzis, B. Task, ESHRE Force on Ethics and Law: Surrogacy. Hum Reprod 2005;20(10):2705–2707.Google Scholar
Braverman, AM. Mental health counseling in third-party reproduction in the United States: evaluation, psychoeducation, or ethical gatekeeping? Fertil Steril 2015;104:501–506.Google Scholar
Practice Committee and the Mental Health Professional Group of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Guidance on qualifications for fertility counselors: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril 2021;115(6):1411–1415.Google Scholar
Schwartz, LL. Psychological and legal perspectives on surrogate motherhood. Am J Fam Ther 1991;19:363–366.Google Scholar
Hanafin, H. Surrogacy and gestational carrier participants. In: Covington, SN, Hammer-Burns, L., Eds. Infertility Counseling: A Comprehensive Handbook for Clinicians, 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006, 370–386.Google Scholar
Hanley, R. Father of Baby M thought mother had been screened. New York Times [Internet]. January 14, 1987 [cited January 15, 2020]: B1. Available from: www.nytimes.com/1987/01/14/nyregion/father-of-baby-m-thought-mother-had-been-screened.html [last accessed June 16, 2022].Google Scholar
Riddle, MP. Psychological assessment of gestational carrier candidates: current approaches, challenges, and future considerations. Fertil Steril 2020a;113(5):897–902.Google Scholar
Riddle, MP. The psychological impact of surrogacy on the families of gestational surrogates: implications for clinical practice. J Psychosom Obstet Gynaecol 2020b (online). https://doi.org/10.1080/0167482X.2020.1814729CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riddle, MP, Jenkins, SR. Clinical considerations in the psychological assessment of gestational surrogates: uses of narrative assessment. Hum Fertil 2020 (online). https://doi.org/10.1080/14647273.2020.1778802Google Scholar
Butcher, JN, Ed. Clinical Personality Assessment: Practical Approaches. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1995.Google Scholar
Blyth, E. “I wanted to be interesting. I wanted to be able to say that ‘I’ve done something interesting in my life’”: interviews with surrogate mothers in Britain. J Reprod Infant Psychol 1994;12:189–198.Google Scholar
Ciccarelli, JC, Beckman, LI. Navigating rough waters: an overview of psychological aspects of surrogacy. J Soc Issues 2005;61:21–43.Google Scholar
Jadva, V, Murray, C, Lycette, E, MacCallum, F, Golombok, S. Surrogacy: the experiences of surrogate mothers. Hum Reprod 2003;18:2196–2204.Google Scholar
Van den Akker, O. Genetic and gestational surrogate mothers’ experience of surrogacy. J Reprod Infant Psychol 2003;21:145–161.Google Scholar
Klock, SC, Covington, SN. Results of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 among gestational surrogacy candidates. Int J Gynecol Obstet 2015;130:257–260.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Berend, Z. Surrogate losses: failed conception and pregnancy loss among American surrogate mothers. In Komaromy, C, Ed. Understanding Reproductive Loss: Perspectives on Life, Death, and Fertility. Abingdon: Taylor and Francis, 2012, 93–104.Google Scholar
Soderstrom-Antilla, V, Wennerholm, UB, Loft, A, et al. Surrogacy: outcomes for surrogate mothers, children, and the resulting families – a systematic review. Hum Reprod Update 2016;22:260–276.Google Scholar
Jadva, V, Imrie, S. Children of surrogate mothers: psychological well-being, family relationships and experiences of surrogacy. Hum Reprod 2014;29:90–96.Google Scholar
Riddle, M. An investigation into the psychological well-being of the biological children of surrogates. Cogent Psychology 2017;4:1305035.Google Scholar

References

Harper, JC, Kennett, D, Reisel, D. The end of donor anonymity: how genetic testing is likely to drive anonymous gamete donation out of business. Hum Reprod 2016;31:1135–1140.Google Scholar
Regalado, A. More than 26 million people have taken an at-home ancestry test, MIT Technology Review. Available from: www.technologyreview.com/2019/02/11/103446/more-than-26-million-people-have-taken-an-at-home-ancestry-test/ [last accessed June 16, 2022].Google Scholar
Ancestry.com. Privacy statement. Available from: www.ancestry.com/cs/legal/privacystatement [last accessed June 16, 2022].Google Scholar
Vanish Voice. Autumn 2019, pp. 5–7. Available from: https://vanish.org.au/media/95986/vanish-autumn-voice-newsletter-2019.pdf [last accessed June 16, 2022].Google Scholar
Shapiro, D. Inheritance, Memoir of Genealogy, Paternity, and Love. New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf, 2019.Google Scholar
Sarles, P. Assisted reproduction: books for parents to help explain assisted reproduction to their children. Available from: https://donorgroupsnyc.blogspot.com/2011/07/patricia-sarles-blogspot-about-books.html [last accessed June 16, 2022].Google Scholar
Donor Conception Network. Available from: www.dcnetwork.org/ [last accessed June 16, 2022].Google Scholar
Victorian Assisted Reproductive Treatment Authority. Available from: www.varta.org.au/after-donor-conception/telling-children-family-and-others [last accessed June 16, 2022].Google Scholar
Golombok, S. We Are Family. London: Scribe publications, 2020, p. 261.Google Scholar
DNA Detectives Facebook group, hosted by CeCe Moore – Genetic Genealogist. Available from: www.facebook.com/groups/DNADetectives/ [last accessed June 16, 2022].Google Scholar
Leetz, K. An unanticipated outcome of a DNA test. Am J Psychiatry 2018;175(12):1167–1168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jadva, V. Sperm and egg donors’ experiences of anonymous donation subsequent contact with their donor offspring. Hum Reprod 2011;26:638–645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Victorian Assisted Reproductive Treatment Authority. March 2017. Available from: www.varta.org.au/resources/personal-stories/we-were-sperm-donors [last accessed June 16, 2022].Google Scholar
Dempsey, D, Kelly, F, Horsfall, B, Hammarberg, K, Bourne, K, Johnson, L. Applications to statutory donor registers in Victoria, Australia: information sought and expectations of contact. Reprod Biomed Soc Online 2019;9:28–36.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Scheib, J, McCormick, E, Benward, J. Finding people like me: contact among young adults who share an open-identity sperm donor, Hum Reprod Open 2020;4:hoaa057.Google Scholar
Jadva, V, Freeman, T, Kramer, W, Golombok, S. Experiences of offspring searching for and contacting their donor siblings and donor. Reprod BioMed Online 2010;20(4):523–532.Google Scholar
Hertz, R, Nelson, M. Random Families, Genetic Strangers, Sperm Donor Siblings, and the Creation of New Kin. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018.Google Scholar
Kelly, F, Dempsey, D, Power, J, Bourne, K, Hammarberg, K, Johnson, L. From stranger to family or something in between: donor linking in an era of retrospective access to anonymous sperm donor records in Victoria, Australia. Int J Law Policy Family 2019;33:277–297.Google Scholar
Victorian Assisted Reproductive Treatment Authority. Available from: www.varta.org.au/resources/information-sheets/navigating-donor-linking [last accessed June 16, 2022].Google Scholar

References

Golombok, S. Modern Families: Parents and Children in New Family Forms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015.Google Scholar
Wyverkens, E, Van Parys, H, Buysse, A. Experiences of family relationships among donor conceived families: a meta-ethnography. Qual Health Res 2014 (online). https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732314554096Google Scholar
Nordqvist, P. Telling reproductive stories: social scripts, relationality and donor conception Sociol 2021 (online). https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038520981860CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frith, L, Blyth, E, Crawshaw, M, van den Akker, O. Secrets and disclosure in donor conception Sociol Health Illn 2018;40:188–203. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9566.12633Google Scholar
Indekeu, A, Maas, A, McCormick, E, Benward, J, Scheib, J. Factors associated with searching for people related through donor conception among donor-conceived people, parents and donors: a systematic review. F&S Rev 2021a;2:93–119.Google Scholar
Frith, L, Blyth, E, Crawshaw, M, van den Akker, O. Searching for ‘relations’ using a DNA linking register by adults conceived following sperm donation. BioSocieties 2017;13:170–189.Google Scholar
Mahlstedt, PP, LaBounty, K, Kennedy, WT. The views of adult offspring of sperm donation: essential feedback for the development of ethical guidelines within the practice of assisted reproductive technology in the United States. Fertil Steril 2010;93:2236–2246.Google Scholar
Jociles, MI, Rivas, AM, Alvarez, C. Strategies to personalise and to depersonalise donors in parental narratives of children’s genetic/gestational origins (Spain). Suomen Antropologi 2017;24:25–50.Google Scholar
Indekeu, A, D’Hooghe, T, Daniels, K, Dierickx, K, Rober, P. When “sperm” becomes “donor”: transitions in parents’ views of the sperm donor. Hum Fertil 2014;17:269–277. https://doi.org/10.3109/14647273.2014.910872CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Isaksson, S, Sydsjo, G, Svanberg, AS, Lampic, C. Managing absence and presence of child-parent resemblance: a challenge for heterosexual couples following sperm donation Reprod Biomed Soc Online 2019 (online). https://doi.org/10.org/j.rbms.2019.07.001Google Scholar
Blyth, E, Crawshaw, M, Frith, L, Jones, C. Donor-conceived people’s views and experiences of their genetic origins: a critical analysis of the research evidence. J Law Med 2012;19(4):769–789.Google Scholar
Indekeu, A, Hens, K. Part of my story: the meaning and experiences of genes and genetics for sperm donor-conceived offspring New Genet Soc 2019;38(1):18–37.Google Scholar
Canzi, E, Accordini, M, Facchin, F. ‘Is blood thicker than water?’ Donor-conceived offsprings’ subjective experiences of the donor: a systematic narrative review. Reprod BioMed Online 2019;38(5):797–807.Google Scholar
Hertz, R, Nelson, M. Random Families. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2019.Google Scholar
Indekeu, A, Bolt, S, Maas, A. Meeting multiple same-donor offspring: psychosocial challenges. Hum Fertil 2021b (online). https://doi.org/10.1080/14647273.2021.1872804Google Scholar
Crawshaw, M, Daniels, K. Revisiting the use of ‘counselling’ as a means of preparing prospective parents to meet the emerging psychosocial needs of families that have used gamete donation. Fam Relatsh Soc 2018 (online). https://doi.org/10.1332/204674318X15313158773308CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×