In the Best Interests of the Child? Regulating Assisted Reproductive Technologies and the Well-Being of Offspring in Three Australian States

Thorpe, Rachel; Croy, Samantha; Petersen, Kerry; Pitts, Marian

doi:10.1093/lawfam/ebs012

Cited by 10 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Yet while the welfare of the child appears to guide donors' decisions in this study, and is given weight by researchers and policy makers internationally, whether or not selection and assessment, or meetings between the various parties, facilitate the welfare of the child are open to debate. For example, social criteria may not necessarily make for better parenting (de Lacey et al, 2010), conditional donation may not guarantee a child good parenting and assessments may be subjective (Allan, 2010;Goedeke et al, 2015;de Lacey, Peterson, & McMillan, 2015;Thorpe, Croy, Petersen, & Pitts, 2012). Even in adoption research, there is debate around the nature of eligibility and suitability requirements and the role of birth parents in placement decisions (O'Halloran, 2015).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

We wanted to choose us: how embryo donors choose recipients for their surplus embryos

Goedeke

Daniels

2018

Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

We wanted to choose us: how embryo donors choose recipients for their surplus embryos

Goedeke

Daniels

2018

Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Doing this requires moving beyond an understanding of children as naïve or otherwise unable to provide comment about their lives, and towards recognising the considerable contribution that children (whether as young people or as adults) can make to shaping public policy (Riggs, 2010). Indeed, research by Thorpe, Croy, Petersen, and Pitts (2012) suggests that lobbying by donor--conceived offspring can significantly impact upon the adoption of legislative provisions for better access to donor information.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sperm donors’ accounts of lesbian recipients: heterosexualisation as a tool for warranting claims to children’s ‘best interests’

Scholz

Riggs

2013

Psychology & Sexuality

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Whilst there exists a considerable body of research documenting heterosexual couples' use of donor sperm, relatively little is known about the experiences of lesbian recipients of donor sperm and the men who donate to them. Moreover, in all aspects of donor conception there is ongoing debate over what constitutes children's 'best interests', with this being most problematic in the unregulated private sector (of which lesbian use of donor sperm from gay men constitutes the largest portion). This paper presents narratives of a sample of 16 gay men and one heterosexual man who had donated or who were in the process of donating sperm to lesbian recipients. Specifically, the paper focuses on the ways in which the majority of the men elaborated a narrative in which their relationship to the birth mother was 'heterosexualised', a narrative that functioned to attribute to them a considerable role in determining the 'best interests' of donor--conceived children. The paper concludes by providing suggestions for legislation and policy stemming from the findings, and recommends that greater attention be paid to the voices of donor--conceived children.

show abstract

“…Previous research on the regulation of access to ART services at clinical level is mainly retrospective and based on surveys 11 or interviews with clinic staff. 12 Lee et al 13 reported that out of 20 UK clinics, 15 reported refusing treatment in up to 10 cases of concern for the welfare of the child in a year. A questionnaire study with 210 directors of ART programmes in the USA showed that, on average, programmes reported denying treatment to 4% of their candidates each year: 3% for medical reasons and 1% for social and psychological reasons.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Access to infertility evaluation and treatment in two public fertility clinics and the reasons for withholding it: a prospective survey cohort study of healthcare professionals

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivesStudy the proportion of patients affected by involuntary childlessness who are denied fertility treatment and the reasons behind this in a publicly funded healthcare system.DesignSurvey study using prospectively collected information by healthcare professionals.SettingTwo university-affiliated fertility clinics in Sweden.ParticipantsSingle women and couples in heterosexual and homosexual relationships seeking fertility evaluation and treatment between November 2017 and April 2018 (943 individual cases).Primary and secondary outcome measuresNumber and proportion of individuals who were either denied, delayed or granted fertility treatment directly. Furthermore, the reasons behind delaying or completely withholding treatment.ResultsThe majority of those seeking evaluation were heterosexual couples (75%), while 14% were single women and 7.5% were same-sex couples. The great majority of those undergoing evaluation were granted treatment either directly (85%) or after in-depth evaluation (7.5%), while 7.5% were denied treatment. Among those who were denied treatment, there were a greater proportion of single women and couples seeking treatment with donated gametes. Among heterosexual couples, gamete origin was not associated with treatment refusal. Although age did not differ between those granted and denied treatment, a higher body mass index (in both recipient and partner, when applicable) was observed among those being refused treatment. Fertility specialists in Sweden focused their assessment on parental factors that may indirectly entail a risk of harm to the future child, such as medical and psychiatric conditions of the individuals involved, their financial constraints and other social reasons, substance abuse and female obesity.ConclusionBeing single or receiving treatment with donated gametes can both be reasons for withholding fertility treatment. Although difficult to operationalise, parenting assessment in Sweden is employed interchangeably in treatments with donated gametes (legally mandated assessment) and even autologous gametes (non-legally mandated assessment)—making evident a need for clear official policy guidelines regulating these assessments and the provision of treatment.

show abstract

In the Best Interests of the Child? Regulating Assisted Reproductive Technologies and the Well-Being of Offspring in Three Australian States

Cited by 10 publications

References 22 publications

We wanted to choose us: how embryo donors choose recipients for their surplus embryos

We wanted to choose us: how embryo donors choose recipients for their surplus embryos

Sperm donors’ accounts of lesbian recipients: heterosexualisation as a tool for warranting claims to children’s ‘best interests’

Access to infertility evaluation and treatment in two public fertility clinics and the reasons for withholding it: a prospective survey cohort study of healthcare professionals

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About