Skip to main content
Download PDF
  • Article Original
  • Le Vécu et le Regard des Principaux Acteurs
  • Open access
  • Published:

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

Basic and Clinical Andrology volume 20, pages 29–36 (2010)Cite this article

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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Service de biologie de la reproduction, Cecos, hôpital Cochin, AP-HP, 123, boulevard de Port-Royal, F-75014, Paris, France

    P. Jouannet, J.-M. Kunstmann & J.-C. Juillard

  2. Service de biologie de la reproduction, Cecos, CHU de Besançon, F-25030, Besançon cedex, France

    J.-L. Bresson

  3. Université Paris-Descartes, Paris, France

    P. Jouannet

Authors
  1. P. Jouannet
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. J.-M. Kunstmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. J.-C. Juillard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. J.-L. Bresson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Consortia

La Fédération française des Cecos

Corresponding author

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

Open Access This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Jouannet, P., Kunstmann, JM., Juillard, JC. et al. 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. Basic Clin. Androl. 20, 29–36 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12610-010-0067-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12610-010-0067-2

Mots clés

Keywords

Basic and Clinical Andrology

ISSN: 2051-4190