Top

Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics

Published in:

01-05-2009 | AROUND THE WORLD

Attitudes towards gamete donation among IVF doctors in the Nordic countries—are they in line with national legislation?

Authors: Claudia Lampic, Agneta Skoog Svanberg, Gunilla Sydsjö

Published in: Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics | Issue 5/2009

Abstract

Purpose

To compare attitudes towards gamete donation between IVF doctors in the Nordic countries, and to determine whether attitudes are in correspondence with national legislation.

Materials and methods

A study-specific questionnaire was used to study attitudes of 108 IVF doctors (92% response). Participants constituted 78% of all IVF doctors in Sweden, Denmark and Norway and 15% of IVF doctors in Finland.

Results

Despite similar legislation regarding offspring right to learn his/her donor’s identity, IVF doctors from Norway reported significantly more negative attitudes towards disclosure than did Swedish physicians. A majority from all countries demonstrated positive attitudes towards embryo donation and allowing sperm donation for lesbian couples. Physicians reported strong support for anonymous donation but less support for ‘known’ donation.

Conclusion

There are discrepancies between IVF doctors’ attitudes towards gamete donation and national legislation in four Nordic countries. Negative attitudes towards disclosure to offspring may counteract legislative intentions.

Nordic Council of Ministers. Legislation on biotechnology in the nordic countries—An overview. Copenhagen; 2006.

Burrell R. Assisted reproduction in the nordic countries. A comparative study of policies and regulation. [Report] 2005 October 2005 [cited 2005 2006-01-02]; Available from: www.ncbio.org.

Daniels K, et al. Semen providers and their three families. J Psychosom Obstet Gynaecol. 2005;26(1):15–22. doi:10.1080/01443610400022975.PubMedCrossRef

Lindblad F, Gottlieb C, Lalos O. To tell or not to tell—what parents think about telling their children that they were born following donor insemination. Psychosom Obstet Gynecol. 2000;21:193–203. doi:10.3109/01674820009085588.CrossRef

Fonnest I, et al. Attitudes among health care professionals on the ethics of assisted reproductive technologies and legal abortion. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2000;79:49–53. doi:10.1034/j.1600-0412.2000.079001049.x.PubMedCrossRef

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. doi:10.1093/humrep/dem063.PubMedCrossRef

Shehab D, et al. How parents whose children have been conceived with donor gametes make their disclosure decision: context, influences, and couple dynamics. Fertil Steril. 2007;89(1):179–87. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2007.02.046.PubMedCrossRef

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(9):2052–6. doi:10.1093/humrep/15.9.2052.PubMedCrossRef

Leeb-Lundberg S, Kjellberg S, Sydsjö G. Helping parents to tell their children about the use of donor insemination (DI) and determining their opinions about open-identity sperm donors. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2006;85:78–81.PubMedCrossRef

10.

Bergh C, et al. Attitudes towards and management of single embryo transefer among Nordic IVF doctors. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2007;86:1222–30. doi:10.1080/00016340701622393.CrossRef

11.

Skoog Svanberg A, et al. Public opinion regarding oocyte donation in Sweden. Hum Reprod. 2003;18(5):1107–14. doi:10.1093/humrep/deg222.PubMedCrossRef

12.

Skoog Svanberg A, Sydsjö G, Lampic C. Attitudes towards gamete donation among Swedish gyaecologists and obstetricians. Hum Reprod. 2008;23(4):904–11. doi:10.1093/humrep/dem416.PubMedCrossRef

13.

Sydsjö G, Lampic C, Skoog Svanberg A. Nurses promote openness regarding the genetic origins after gamete donation. Acta Paediatr. 2007;96:1500–4. doi:10.1111/j.1651-2227.2007.00456.x.PubMedCrossRef

14.

Grol R. Personal paper: beliefs and evidence in changing clinical practice. BMJ. 1997;315:418–21.PubMed

15.

Stern J, et al. Attitudes on access to services at assisted reproductive technology clinics: comparisons with clinic policy. Fertil Steril. 2002;77(3):537–41. doi:10.1016/S0015-0282(01)03208-3.PubMedCrossRef

16.

Haagen E, et al. Barriers to physician adherence to a subfertility guideline. Hum Reprod. 2005;20:3301–6. doi:10.1093/humrep/dei220.PubMedCrossRef

17.

Lycett E, et al. Offspring created as a result of donor insemination: a study of family relationships, child adjustment, and disclosure. Fertil Steril. 2004;82(1):172–9. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2003.11.039.PubMedCrossRef

18.

Golombok S, et al. The European study of assisted reproduction families: the transition to adolescence. Hum Reprod. 2002;17(3):830–40. doi:10.1093/humrep/17.3.830.PubMedCrossRef

19.

Nachtigall R, et al. Stigma, disclosure, and family functioning among parents of children conceived through donor insemination. Fertil Steril. 1997;68(1):83–9. doi:10.1016/S0015-0282(97)81480-X.PubMedCrossRef

20.

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 counselling and therapy. Hum Reprod. 2000;15(9):2041–51. doi:10.1093/humrep/15.9.2041.PubMedCrossRef

21.

Stoll J. Swedish donor offspring and their legal right to information, in Department of Law. Uppsala university: Uppsala; 2008.

22.

Sundby J, Olsen A. Infertility, technology and the law. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 1990;69:641–4. doi:10.3109/00016349009028710.PubMedCrossRef

23.

Adair V, Purdie A. Donor insemination programmes with personal donors: issues of secrecy. Hum Reprod. 1996;11:2558–63.PubMed

24.

Yee S, Hitkari J, Greenblatt E. A follow-up of women who donated oocytes to known recipient couples for altruistic reasons. Hum Reprod. 2007;7:2040–50. doi:10.1093/humrep/dem103.CrossRef

25.

Nygren KG, Jansson PO. The Nordic Fertility Society. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2005;84:411. doi:10.1111/j.0001-6349.2005.00844.x.PubMedCrossRef

26.

Pennings G. Legal harmonization and reproductive tourism in Europe. Hum Reprod. 2004;19(12):2689–94. doi:10.1093/humrep/deh486.PubMedCrossRef

Title: Attitudes towards gamete donation among IVF doctors in the Nordic countries—are they in line with national legislation?
Authors: Claudia Lampic
Agneta Skoog Svanberg
Gunilla Sydsjö
Publication date: 01-05-2009
Publisher: Springer US
Published in: Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics / Issue 5/2009
Print ISSN: 1058-0468
Electronic ISSN: 1573-7330
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-009-9311-0

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Attitudes towards gamete donation among IVF doctors in the Nordic countries—are they in line with national legislation?

Abstract

Purpose

Materials and methods

Results

Conclusion

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Purpose

Materials and methods

Results

Conclusion

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 5/2009

Does subtle progesterone rise on the day of HCG affect pregnancy rate in long agonist ICSI cycles?

Closed-system solid surface vitrification versus slow programmable freezing of mouse 2-cell embryos

Follicular and luteal phase endometrial thickness and echogenic pattern and pregnancy outcome in oocyte donation cycles

A case of an infertile male with a small supernumerary marker chromosome negative for M-FISH and containing only heterochromatin

IVF/ICSI with or without preimplantation genetic screening for aneuploidy in couples without genetic disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Ovulation triggering with GnRH agonist vs. hCG in the same egg donor population undergoing donor oocyte cycles with GnRH antagonist: a prospective randomized cross-over trial