College students’ acceptance of adoption and five alternative fertilization techniques

Effects of Adoptive Status on Evaluations of Children

“…The finding that women rated semi-adopted children more negatively than nonadopted children partially supports anecdotal evidence suggesting negative social attitudes toward the process of artificial insemination or the children born of AID (Dunn, Ryan, & O'Brien, 1988;Herz, 1989;McWhinnie, 1992;Rowland, 1985;Sparks & Hamilton, 1991). One contribution of our research is that we replicated previous anecdotal studies in a quantitative fashion, using an experimental design.…”

“…1967). Another study found that only between 14.48 and 23% of college-age students in the United States considered AID to be an acceptable method of dealing with infertility (Dunn, Ryan, & O'Brien, 1988).…”

‘Together … for only a moment’: British newspaper constructions of altruistic non-commercial surrogate motherhood

“…Research on attitudes towards surrogacy, at the same time period as many media reports were also largely negative throughout the 1980's, 90's and well into the millennium (Dunn et al, 1988;Appleton, 1990;Bromham, 1991;Halman et al, 1992;Genius et al, 1993;Krishnan, 1994;Frazier and Chapman, 1994;BMA, 1996;Chliaoutakis et al, 2002;Suzuki et al, 2006;Poote and van den Akker, 2009), although other recent surveys report more variable attitudes (Dempsey and Critchley, 2010;Constantinidis and Cook, 2012). This demonstrates a general discord between the practice of surrogacy and the populations' perception of it, and a simultaneous alarmist framed media portrayal of British altruistic surrogacy.…”

“…Surrogacy does not conform to traditional family building norms even in societies where social variations in family formation are increasingly common (van den Akker, 2007). Attitude surveys have demonstrated that surrogacy is the least acceptable method of family building (Dunn et al, 1988;Halman et al, 1992;Genius et al, 1993); non-commercial altruistic surrogacy is more acceptable than commercial surrogacy (Krishnan, 1994), and religion affects acceptability of surrogacy (Chliaoutakis et al, 2002;Dempsey and Critchley, 2010). Partial surrogacy is also perceived as less acceptable than full surrogacy (Appleton, 1990;Bromham, 1991;Frazier and Chapman, 1994;BMA, 1996;Suzuki et al, 2006;Poote and van den Akker, 2009), although more recent research has shown attitudes to be more variable (Dempsey and Critchley, 2010;Constantinidis and Cook, 2012).…”

The controversy surrounding privacy or disclosure among donor gamete recipients

“…The donor gamete child who is aware of his/her donor origin faces many of the same issues as an adopted child, including (i) being raised by at least one nonbioiogicatty related parent, (ii) having some understanding that he/she is "different" from other children; (iii) at times rejecting his/her nonbiological parent; and (iv) wanting more information about the donor, the "missing parent." Alternatively, the donor gamete child is different from an adopted child in several important ways, including (i) having a genetic connection to one recipient parent, (ii) his/her gestation and delivery occurring in the context of the recipients' relationship, (iii) not being "given up" or "surrendered" by the biological parents, and (iv) being aware of the general lack of societal approval of donor gamete use as a means of family building (3,4). The existence of these differ-ences needs to be considered prior to making a recommendation regarding disclosure to a donor gamete offspring.…”