Skip to main content

Advertisement

La majorité des couples procréant par don de sperme envisagent d’informer l’enfant de son mode de conception, mais la plupart souhaitent le maintien de l’anonymat du donneur

The majority of couples procreating with donor semen are considering to inform the child of the circumstances of its conception but most of them want to keep the donor anonymous

Article metrics

  • 325 Accesses

  • 5 Citations

Résumé

L’anonymat du don de sperme est reconnu par la loi depuis 1994 en France, mais il a été supprimé par plusieurs pays. Nous présentons les résultats d’une étude qui a été réalisée dans 14 Cecos en 2006 auprès de 534 couples soit en phase d’attente ou en cours de réalisation de l’assistance médicale à la procréation, soit ayant déjà eu au moins un enfant par don de sperme. Les résultats sont très homogènes entre les hommes et les femmes et dans les différents groupes. Plus de 90 % des hommes et des femmes sont en accord avec l’anonymat du don de sperme, et moins de 10 % souhaitent que la loi change sur ce point. Environ un quart d’entre eux renoncerait à leur projet parental si la loi changeait. Plus de 50 % des couples envisagent d’informer l’enfant des modalités de sa conception. Près d’un tiers souhaiterait que des informations, concernant principalement la santé des donneurs, puissent leur être transmises ainsi qu’aux enfants. Les couples souhaitant devenir parents par don de sperme font une distinction claire entre l’anonymat du donneur et l’information de l’enfant sur les circonstances de sa conception.

Abstract

Semen donation is anonymous by law since 1994 in France but has been abolished in various countries. We present the results of a study that has been conducted in 14 Cecos in 2006, including 534 couples who were waiting for the assisted procreation, were under treatment, or had already at least one child with donor semen. The results were very similar between men and women and in the various groups. Over 90% of the men and the women are in agreement with donors’ anonymity and less than 10% would like the law to be changed on this point. Approximately 25% of them would give up their parental project if the law was going to change. Almost one-third would like information on the semen donor, mainly on his health, to be transmitted to themselves and to the children. The couples who plan to become parents through semen donation make a clear distinction between donor anonymity and child disclosure on its conception circumstances.

Références

  1. 1.

    Frith L (2001) Gamete donation and anonimity The ethical an legal debate. Hum Reprod 16:818–24

  2. 2.

    Curie-Cohen L, Luttrel MS, Shapiro S (1979) Current practice of artificial insemination by donors in the United States. NEJM 11: 585–90

  3. 3.

    David G, Lansac J (1980) The organization of the centers for the study and the preservation of semen in France. In: David G, Price WS (eds) Human artificial insemination and semen preservation. Plenum Press New York, 15–25

  4. 4.

    Brewaeys A (2001) Review: Parent-child relationships and child development in donor insemination families. Hum Reprod Update 7:38–46

  5. 5.

    Gottlieb C, Lalos O, Lindblad F (2000) Disclosure of donor insemination to the child: the impact of Swedish legislation on couples attitude. Hum Reprod 15: 2052–6

  6. 6.

    Hampton T (2005) Anonymity of gamete donations debated. JAMA 294:2681–3

  7. 7.

    Marzano M (2010) L’anonymat dans l’insémination avec don de sperme: un regard éthique. Andrologie 20 (Présent numéro)

  8. 8.

    van den Akker O (2006) A review of family donor constructs: current research and future directions. Hum Reprod Update 12: 91–101

  9. 9.

    Brewaeys A, de Bruyn JK, Louwe LA, Helmerhorst FM (2005) Anonymous or identity-registered sperm donors? A study of Dutch recipients’ choice. Hum Reprod 20:820–4

  10. 10.

    David G (2007) À propos de la proposition de loi (juin 2006) relative À la possibilité de lever l’anonymat des donneurs de gamètes. Gyn Obstet Fertil 35:486–90

  11. 11.

    Cook S, Golombok S, Bish A, Murray C (1995) Keeping secrets: a controlled study of parental attitudes towards telling about donor insemination. Am J Orthopsychiatry 65:549–59

  12. 12.

    Nachtigall RD, Becker G, Szkupinski Quiroga S, Tschann JM (1998) The disclosure decision: concerns and issues of parents of children conceived through donor insemination. Am J Obstet Gynecol 178:1165–70

  13. 13.

    Lalos A, Gottlieb C, Lalos O (2007) Legislation right for donorinsemination children to know their genetic origin: a study of parental thinking. Hum Reprod 22:1759–68

  14. 14.

    Golombok S, Brewaeys A, Cook R, et al (1996) The European study of assisted reproduction families. Hum Reprod 11:2324–31

  15. 15.

    Golombok S, Brewaeys A, Giavazzi MT, et al (2002) The European study of assisted reproduction families: the transition to adolescence. Hum Reprod 17:830–40

  16. 16.

    Daniels K, Gilett W, Grace V (2009) Parental information sharing with donor insemination conceived offspring: a follow-up study. Hum Reprod 24:1099–105

  17. 17.

    Lindblad F, Gottlieb C, Lalos O (2009) To tell or not to tell-what parents think about telling their children that they were born following donor insemination. J Psychosom Obstet Gynecol 21: 193–203

  18. 18.

    Nachtigall RD, Tschann JM, Szkupinski Quiroga S, et al (1997) Stigma, disclosure and family functioning among parents of children conceived through donor insemination. Fertil Steril 68:83–9

  19. 19.

    Daniels KR, Thorn P (2001) Sharing information with donor insemination offspring, Hum Reprod 9:1792–6

  20. 20.

    Janssens PMW, Simons AHM, van Kooij RJ, et al (2006) A new Dutch Law regulating provision of identifying information on donors to offsring: background, content and impact. Hum Reprod 21: 852–6

  21. 21.

    The Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (2004) Informing offspring of their conception by gamete donation. Fertil Steril 82:S212–6

  22. 22.

    Scheib JE, Ruby A (2006) Impact of sperm donor insemination on parents and children. Sexual Reprod Menopause 4:17–9

Download references

Author information

Correspondence to P. Jouannet.

Additional information

Cecos ayant participés à l’étude: Besançon, Bordeaux (A. Papaxanthos), Clermont-Ferrand (L. Jany), Lyon (J.-F. Guérin), Marseille CHU (J.-M. Grillo), Montpellier (S. Hamamah), Paris Cochin, Paris Necker (F. Eustache), Paris Tenon (I. Berthaut), Reims (M.-C. Mélin), Rouen (N. Rives), Strasbourg (I. Koscinski), Toulouse (M. Daudin), Tours (C. Barthelemy)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Mots clés

  • Don de sperme
  • Anonymat
  • Conception par don
  • Information de l’enfant
  • Stérilité masculine

Keywords

  • Semen donation
  • Anonymity
  • Donor conception
  • Disclosure
  • Male infertility