Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 1/2018

01-03-2018 | Original Research

Narrative Identity in Third Party Reproduction: Normative Aspects and Ethical Challenges

Author: Natacha Salomé Lima

Published in: Journal of Bioethical Inquiry | Issue 1/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

In the last few decades, assisted reproduction has introduced new challenges to the way people conceive and build their families. While the numbers of donor-conceived (DC) individuals have increased worldwide, there are still many controversies concerning access to donor information. Is there a fundamental moral right to know one’s genetic background? What does identity in DC families mean? Is there any relationship between identity formation and disclosure of genetic origins? These questions are addressed by analysing core regulatory discourse (ethical recommendations and codes of practice). This analysis shows that the notion of narrative identity is suitable for defining and answering these questions. This review analyses the meaning of resemblance in DC families and the way donors are selected following affinity-ties and discusses disclosure strategies and agreements. As a preliminary conclusion, it could be said that, in the field of third-party reproduction, knowing about the donor conception significantly contributes towards the development of a narrative identity and also serves as a moral basis for the child’s right to know.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
go back to reference Adlan, A.A., and H.A. ten Have. 2012. The dilemma of revealing sensitive information on paternity status in Arabian social and cultural contexts. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 9(4): 403–409.CrossRefPubMed Adlan, A.A., and H.A. ten Have. 2012. The dilemma of revealing sensitive information on paternity status in Arabian social and cultural contexts. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 9(4): 403–409.CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference ASRM. Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, 2013. Informing offspring of their conception by gamete or embryo donation: A committee opinion. Fertility and Sterility 100(1): 45–49.CrossRef ASRM. Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, 2013. Informing offspring of their conception by gamete or embryo donation: A committee opinion. Fertility and Sterility 100(1): 45–49.CrossRef
go back to reference Becker, G., A. Butler, and R.D. Nachtigall. 2005. Resemblance talk: A challenge for parents whose children were conceived with donor gametes in the USA. Social Science & Medicine, 61(6): 300–1309.CrossRef Becker, G., A. Butler, and R.D. Nachtigall. 2005. Resemblance talk: A challenge for parents whose children were conceived with donor gametes in the USA. Social Science & Medicine, 61(6): 300–1309.CrossRef
go back to reference Blake, L., P. Casey, J. Readings, V. Jadva, and S. Golombok. 2010. “Daddy ran out of tadpoles”: How parents tell their children that they are donor conceived, and what their 7-year-olds understand. Human Reproduction 25(10): 2527–2534.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Blake, L., P. Casey, J. Readings, V. Jadva, and S. Golombok. 2010. “Daddy ran out of tadpoles”: How parents tell their children that they are donor conceived, and what their 7-year-olds understand. Human Reproduction 25(10): 2527–2534.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
go back to reference Brewaeys, A. 1996. Donor insemination, the impact on family and child development. Journal of Psychosomatic Obstetrics & Gynecology 17(1): 1–13.CrossRef Brewaeys, A. 1996. Donor insemination, the impact on family and child development. Journal of Psychosomatic Obstetrics & Gynecology 17(1): 1–13.CrossRef
go back to reference Council of Europe. 1997. Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Dignity of the Human Being with regard to the Application of Biology and Medicine: Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine. European Treaty Series—No. 164. Oviedo, 4.IV Council of Europe. 1997. Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Dignity of the Human Being with regard to the Application of Biology and Medicine: Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine. European Treaty Series—No. 164. Oviedo, 4.IV
go back to reference Daniels, K.R., and K. Taylor. 1993. Secrecy and openness in donor insemination. Politics and the Life Sciences 12(2): 155–170.CrossRefPubMed Daniels, K.R., and K. Taylor. 1993. Secrecy and openness in donor insemination. Politics and the Life Sciences 12(2): 155–170.CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference DeGrazia, D. 2005. Human identity and bioethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef DeGrazia, D. 2005. Human identity and bioethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef
go back to reference De Melo-Martín, I. 2014. The ethics of anonymous gamete donation: Is there a right to know one's genetic origins? Hastings Center Report 44(2): 28–35.CrossRefPubMed De Melo-Martín, I. 2014. The ethics of anonymous gamete donation: Is there a right to know one's genetic origins? Hastings Center Report 44(2): 28–35.CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference Freeman, T. 2015. Gamete donation, information sharing and the best interests of the child: An overview of the psychosocial evidence. Monash Bioethics Review 33(1): 45–63.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Freeman, T. 2015. Gamete donation, information sharing and the best interests of the child: An overview of the psychosocial evidence. Monash Bioethics Review 33(1): 45–63.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
go back to reference Golombok, S., J. Readings, and L. Blake, et al. 2011. Children conceived by gamete donation: Psychological adjustment and mother-child relationships at age 7. Journal of Family Psychology 25(2): 230. Golombok, S., J. Readings, and L. Blake, et al. 2011. Children conceived by gamete donation: Psychological adjustment and mother-child relationships at age 7. Journal of Family Psychology 25(2): 230.
go back to reference Golombok, S., L. Blake, P. Casey, G. Roman, and V. Jadva. 2013. Children born through reproductive donation: A longitudinal study of psychological adjustment. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 54(6): 653–660.CrossRefPubMed Golombok, S., L. Blake, P. Casey, G. Roman, and V. Jadva. 2013. Children born through reproductive donation: A longitudinal study of psychological adjustment. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 54(6): 653–660.CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference Greenfeld, D.A., 2002. Changing attitudes towards third-party reproductive techniques. Current Opinion in Obstetrics and Gynecology 14(3): 289–292.CrossRefPubMed Greenfeld, D.A., 2002. Changing attitudes towards third-party reproductive techniques. Current Opinion in Obstetrics and Gynecology 14(3): 289–292.CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference Grunwald, A., 2014. The hermeneutic side of responsible research and innovation. Journal of Responsible Innovation 1(3): 274–291.CrossRef Grunwald, A., 2014. The hermeneutic side of responsible research and innovation. Journal of Responsible Innovation 1(3): 274–291.CrossRef
go back to reference Hershberger, P., S.C. Klock, and R.B. Barnes. 2007. Disclosure decisions among pregnant women who received donor oocytes: a phenomenological study. Fertility and Sterility 87(2): 288–296.CrossRefPubMed Hershberger, P., S.C. Klock, and R.B. Barnes. 2007. Disclosure decisions among pregnant women who received donor oocytes: a phenomenological study. Fertility and Sterility 87(2): 288–296.CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference Jadva, V., T. Freeman, W. Kramer, and S. Golombok. 2009. The experiences of adolescents and adults conceived by sperm donation: Comparisons by age of disclosure and family type. Human Reproduction 24(8): 1909–1919.CrossRefPubMed Jadva, V., T. Freeman, W. Kramer, and S. Golombok. 2009. The experiences of adolescents and adults conceived by sperm donation: Comparisons by age of disclosure and family type. Human Reproduction 24(8): 1909–1919.CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference Kirkman, M., 2003a. Egg and embryo donation and the meaning of motherhood. Women & Health 38(2): 1–18.CrossRef Kirkman, M., 2003a. Egg and embryo donation and the meaning of motherhood. Women & Health 38(2): 1–18.CrossRef
go back to reference _____. 2003b. Parents’ contributions to the narrative identity of offspring of donor-assisted conception. Social Science & Medicine 57(11): 2229–2242. _____. 2003b. Parents’ contributions to the narrative identity of offspring of donor-assisted conception. Social Science & Medicine 57(11): 2229–2242.
go back to reference _____. 2002. What's the plot? Applying narrative theory to research in psychology. Australian Psychologist 37(1): 30–38. _____. 2002. What's the plot? Applying narrative theory to research in psychology. Australian Psychologist 37(1): 30–38.
go back to reference Kovacs, G.T., S. Wise, and S. Finch. 2015. Keeping a child’s donor sperm conception secret is not linked to family and child functioning during middle childhood: An Australian comparative study. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 55(4): 390–396.CrossRefPubMed Kovacs, G.T., S. Wise, and S. Finch. 2015. Keeping a child’s donor sperm conception secret is not linked to family and child functioning during middle childhood: An Australian comparative study. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 55(4): 390–396.CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference Lalos, A., C. Gottlieb, and O. Lalos. 2007. Legislated right for donor-insemination children to know their genetic origin: A study of parental thinking. Human Reproduction 22(6): 1759–1768.CrossRefPubMed Lalos, A., C. Gottlieb, and O. Lalos. 2007. Legislated right for donor-insemination children to know their genetic origin: A study of parental thinking. Human Reproduction 22(6): 1759–1768.CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference Mac Dougall, K., G. Becker, J.E. Scheib, and R.D. Nachtigall. 2007. Strategies for disclosure: How parents approach telling their children that they were conceived with donor gametes. Fertility and sterility 87(3): 524–533.CrossRefPubMed Mac Dougall, K., G. Becker, J.E. Scheib, and R.D. Nachtigall. 2007. Strategies for disclosure: How parents approach telling their children that they were conceived with donor gametes. Fertility and sterility 87(3): 524–533.CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference Malek, J. 2006. Identity, harm, and the ethics of reproductive technology. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 31(1): 83–95.CrossRefPubMed Malek, J. 2006. Identity, harm, and the ethics of reproductive technology. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 31(1): 83–95.CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference Mamo, L. 2005. Biomedicalizing kinship: Sperm banks and the creation of affinity-ties. Science as Culture 14(3): 237–264.CrossRefPubMed Mamo, L. 2005. Biomedicalizing kinship: Sperm banks and the creation of affinity-ties. Science as Culture 14(3): 237–264.CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference McAdams, D.P., and K.C. McLean. 2013. Narrative identity. Current Directions in Psychological Science 22(3): 233–238.CrossRef McAdams, D.P., and K.C. McLean. 2013. Narrative identity. Current Directions in Psychological Science 22(3): 233–238.CrossRef
go back to reference Nachtigall, R.D., G. Becker, S.S. Quiroga, and J.M. Tschann. 1998. The disclosure decision: Concerns and issues of parents of children conceived through donor insemination. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 178(6): 1165–1170.CrossRefPubMed Nachtigall, R.D., G. Becker, S.S. Quiroga, and J.M. Tschann. 1998. The disclosure decision: Concerns and issues of parents of children conceived through donor insemination. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 178(6): 1165–1170.CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference Nuffield Council on Bioethics. 2013. Donor conception: Ethical aspects of information sharing. London. Nuffield Council on Bioethics. 2013. Donor conception: Ethical aspects of information sharing. London.
go back to reference Pennings, G. 2014. Donación anónima y no anónima: Pros y contras [Anonymous and non-anonymous donation: Pros and cons]. In Reproduccion humana asistida: Aspectos juridicos, soicales y psicológicos, edited by G. Baccino, 301–319. Tirant Humanidades. Pennings, G. 2014. Donación anónima y no anónima: Pros y contras [Anonymous and non-anonymous donation: Pros and cons]. In Reproduccion humana asistida: Aspectos juridicos, soicales y psicológicos, edited by G. Baccino, 301–319. Tirant Humanidades.
go back to reference _____. 1997. The “double track” policy for donor anonymity. Human Reproduction 12(12): 2839–2844. _____. 1997. The “double track” policy for donor anonymity. Human Reproduction 12(12): 2839–2844.
go back to reference Raes, I., A. Ravelingien, and G. Pennings 2016. Donor conception disclosure: Directive or non-Directive counselling? Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 13(3): 369–379.CrossRefPubMed Raes, I., A. Ravelingien, and G. Pennings 2016. Donor conception disclosure: Directive or non-Directive counselling? Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 13(3): 369–379.CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference Ravelingien, A., V. Provoost, and G. Pennings. 2015. Open-identity sperm donation: How does offering donor-identifying information relate to donor-conceived offspring’s wishes and needs? Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 12(3): 503–509.CrossRefPubMed Ravelingien, A., V. Provoost, and G. Pennings. 2015. Open-identity sperm donation: How does offering donor-identifying information relate to donor-conceived offspring’s wishes and needs? Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 12(3): 503–509.CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference Ravelingien, A., and G. Pennings. 2013. The right to know your genetic parents: From open-identity gamete donation to routine paternity testing. The American Journal of Bioethics 13(5): 33–41.CrossRefPubMed Ravelingien, A., and G. Pennings. 2013. The right to know your genetic parents: From open-identity gamete donation to routine paternity testing. The American Journal of Bioethics 13(5): 33–41.CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference Readings, J., L. Blake, P. Casey, V. Jadva, and S. Golombok, 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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Readings, J., L. Blake, P. Casey, V. Jadva, and S. Golombok, 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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
go back to reference Rodino, I.S., P.J. Burton, and K.A. Sanders, 2011. Donor information considered important to donors, recipients and offspring: An Australian perspective. Reproductive Biomedicine Online 22(3): 303–311.CrossRefPubMed Rodino, I.S., P.J. Burton, and K.A. Sanders, 2011. Donor information considered important to donors, recipients and offspring: An Australian perspective. Reproductive Biomedicine Online 22(3): 303–311.CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference Schaffer, J.A., and R. Diamond. 1993. Infertility: Private pain and secret stigma. In Secrets in Families and Family Therapy, edited by E. Imber-Black, 106–120. New York: W.W. Norton. Schaffer, J.A., and R. Diamond. 1993. Infertility: Private pain and secret stigma. In Secrets in Families and Family Therapy, edited by E. Imber-Black, 106–120. New York: W.W. Norton.
go back to reference Shehab, D., J. Duff, L.A. Pasch, et al. 2008. How parents whose children have been conceived with donor gametes make their disclosure decision: Contexts, influences, and couple dynamics. Fertility and Sterility 89(1): 179–187.CrossRefPubMed Shehab, D., J. Duff, L.A. Pasch, et al. 2008. How parents whose children have been conceived with donor gametes make their disclosure decision: Contexts, influences, and couple dynamics. Fertility and Sterility 89(1): 179–187.CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference Strathern, M. 2003. Still giving nature a helping hand? Surrogacy: A debate about technology and society. In Surrogate Motherhood: International Perspectives, edited by R.Cook, S.D Sclater, and F. Kaganas, 281–296. Oxford: Hart Publishing. Strathern, M. 2003. Still giving nature a helping hand? Surrogacy: A debate about technology and society. In Surrogate Motherhood: International Perspectives, edited by R.Cook, S.D Sclater, and F. Kaganas, 281–296. Oxford: Hart Publishing.
go back to reference Swierstra, T., 2015. Identifying the normative challenges posed by technology’s “soft”impacts. Etikk i praksis-Nordic Journal of Applied Ethics 9(1): 5–20.CrossRef Swierstra, T., 2015. Identifying the normative challenges posed by technology’s “soft”impacts. Etikk i praksis-Nordic Journal of Applied Ethics 9(1): 5–20.CrossRef
go back to reference The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. 2015. Code of practice, 8th ed. London. The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. 2015. Code of practice, 8th ed. London.
go back to reference Turner, A.J., and A. Coyle. 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.CrossRefPubMed Turner, A.J., and A. Coyle. 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.CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference UNESCO. 2005. Universal declaration on bioethics and human rights. Records of the General Conference. October, 2005. UNESCO. 2005. Universal declaration on bioethics and human rights. Records of the General Conference. October, 2005.
go back to reference United Nations. 1989. Convention on the rights of the child. Treaty Series, 1577, 3. United Nations. 1989. Convention on the rights of the child. Treaty Series, 1577, 3.
go back to reference Warnock, M. 1986. A question of life. The Warnock report on human fertilisation and embryology. Oxford: B Blackwell. Warnock, M. 1986. A question of life. The Warnock report on human fertilisation and embryology. Oxford: B Blackwell.
Metadata
Title
Narrative Identity in Third Party Reproduction: Normative Aspects and Ethical Challenges
Author
Natacha Salomé Lima
Publication date
01-03-2018
Publisher
Springer Singapore
Published in
Journal of Bioethical Inquiry / Issue 1/2018
Print ISSN: 1176-7529
Electronic ISSN: 1872-4353
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-017-9823-8

Other articles of this Issue 1/2018

Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 1/2018 Go to the issue