Advanced search
1 file | 134.49 KB Add to list

Lesbian couples' views about and experiences of not being able to choose their sperm donor

An Ravelingien (UGent) , Veerle Provoost (UGent) , Elia Wyverkens (UGent) , Ann Buysse (UGent) , Petra De Sutter (UGent) and Guido Pennings (UGent)
(2015) CULTURE HEALTH & SEXUALITY. 17(5). p.592-606
Author
Organization
Abstract
In this qualitative study, we explore how lesbian recipients view and experience the selection of their anonymous sperm donor. The study was conducted in Belgium, where fertility centres follow a legal protocol that severely restricts personal choice in donor selection. While previous studies have shown that recipients want greater control and input in the selection of their sperm donor, this was not a main concern for most women in the present study. They generally acknowledged their lack of control on the selection outcome and accepted this as part and parcel of an anonymous donation policy that provides an opportunity to have a child. They actively and passively downplayed initial concerns about the donor selection procedure and felt they did not have or need a right to further control over the donor selection. In adopting this 'subordinate' position, they felt they should trust the hospital, which they hoped would fulfil rather high screening standards. Those who did want more choice were nuanced and careful about their motivations: they focused on selecting traits that would facilitate normal child development or increase family coherence. The findings shed light on how these patients perceive their position in this third-party reproduction setting.
Keywords
DECISION, KNOWLEDGE, MANAGEMENT, PROVISION, CONCEPTION, INSEMINATION, MOTHER FAMILIES, OOCYTE DONATION, CHILD-DEVELOPMENT, counselling, MEANINGS, assisted reproduction, Belgium, ethics, gamete donation

Downloads

  • (...).pdf
    • full text
    • |
    • UGent only
    • |
    • PDF
    • |
    • 134.49 KB

Citation

Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:

MLA
Ravelingien, An, Veerle Provoost, Elia Wyverkens, et al. “Lesbian Couples’ Views About and Experiences of Not Being Able to Choose Their Sperm Donor.” CULTURE HEALTH & SEXUALITY 17.5 (2015): 592–606. Print.
APA
Ravelingien, A., Provoost, V., Wyverkens, E., Buysse, A., De Sutter, P., & Pennings, G. (2015). Lesbian couples’ views about and experiences of not being able to choose their sperm donor. CULTURE HEALTH & SEXUALITY, 17(5), 592–606.
Chicago author-date
Ravelingien, An, Veerle Provoost, Elia Wyverkens, Ann Buysse, Petra De Sutter, and Guido Pennings. 2015. “Lesbian Couples’ Views About and Experiences of Not Being Able to Choose Their Sperm Donor.” Culture Health & Sexuality 17 (5): 592–606.
Chicago author-date (all authors)
Ravelingien, An, Veerle Provoost, Elia Wyverkens, Ann Buysse, Petra De Sutter, and Guido Pennings. 2015. “Lesbian Couples’ Views About and Experiences of Not Being Able to Choose Their Sperm Donor.” Culture Health & Sexuality 17 (5): 592–606.
Vancouver
1.
Ravelingien A, Provoost V, Wyverkens E, Buysse A, De Sutter P, Pennings G. Lesbian couples’ views about and experiences of not being able to choose their sperm donor. CULTURE HEALTH & SEXUALITY. 2015;17(5):592–606.
IEEE
[1]
A. Ravelingien, V. Provoost, E. Wyverkens, A. Buysse, P. De Sutter, and G. Pennings, “Lesbian couples’ views about and experiences of not being able to choose their sperm donor,” CULTURE HEALTH & SEXUALITY, vol. 17, no. 5, pp. 592–606, 2015.
@article{5817793,
  abstract     = {In this qualitative study, we explore how lesbian recipients view and experience the selection of their anonymous sperm donor. The study was conducted in Belgium, where fertility centres follow a legal protocol that severely restricts personal choice in donor selection. While previous studies have shown that recipients want greater control and input in the selection of their sperm donor, this was not a main concern for most women in the present study. They generally acknowledged their lack of control on the selection outcome and accepted this as part and parcel of an anonymous donation policy that provides an opportunity to have a child. They actively and passively downplayed initial concerns about the donor selection procedure and felt they did not have or need a right to further control over the donor selection. In adopting this 'subordinate' position, they felt they should trust the hospital, which they hoped would fulfil rather high screening standards. Those who did want more choice were nuanced and careful about their motivations: they focused on selecting traits that would facilitate normal child development or increase family coherence. The findings shed light on how these patients perceive their position in this third-party reproduction setting.},
  author       = {Ravelingien, An and Provoost, Veerle and Wyverkens, Elia and Buysse, Ann and De Sutter, Petra and Pennings, Guido},
  issn         = {1369-1058},
  journal      = {CULTURE HEALTH & SEXUALITY},
  keywords     = {DECISION,KNOWLEDGE,MANAGEMENT,PROVISION,CONCEPTION,INSEMINATION,MOTHER FAMILIES,OOCYTE DONATION,CHILD-DEVELOPMENT,counselling,MEANINGS,assisted reproduction,Belgium,ethics,gamete donation},
  language     = {eng},
  number       = {5},
  pages        = {592--606},
  title        = {Lesbian couples' views about and experiences of not being able to choose their sperm donor},
  url          = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13691058.2014.979883},
  volume       = {17},
  year         = {2015},
}

Altmetric
View in Altmetric
Web of Science
Times cited: