Advanced search
1 file | 381.05 KB

Donor conception disclosure: directive or non-directive counseling?

Inez Raes (UGent) , An Ravelingien (UGent) and Guido Pennings (UGent)
(2016) JOURNAL OF BIOETHICAL INQUIRY. 13(3). p.369-379
Author
Organization
Abstract
It is widely agreed among health professionals that couples using donor insemination should be offered counselling on the topic of donor conception disclosure. However, it is clear from the literature that there has long been a lack of agreement about which counselling approach should be used in this case: a directive or a non-directive approach. In this paper we investigate which approach is ethically justifiable by balancing the two underlying principles of autonomy (non-directive approach) and beneficence (directive approach). To overrule one principle in favour of another, six conditions should be fulfilled. We analyse the arguments in favour of the beneficence principle, and consequently, a directive approach. This analysis shows that two conditions are not met; the principle of autonomy should not be overridden. Therefore, at this moment, a directive counselling approach on donor conception disclosure cannot be ethically justified.
Keywords
SPERM DONATION, GAMETE DONATION, ASSISTED CONCEPTION, CHILD-DEVELOPMENT, EMBRYO DONATION, FOLLOW-UP, INSEMINATION, PARENTS, FAMILIES, INFERTILITY, Counselling, Ethics, Donor conception, Secrecy, Disclosure

Downloads

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

Citation

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

Chicago
Raes, Inez, An Ravelingien, and Guido Pennings. 2016. “Donor Conception Disclosure: Directive or Non-directive Counseling?” Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 13 (3): 369–379.
APA
Raes, I., Ravelingien, A., & Pennings, G. (2016). Donor conception disclosure: directive or non-directive counseling? JOURNAL OF BIOETHICAL INQUIRY, 13(3), 369–379.
Vancouver
1.
Raes I, Ravelingien A, Pennings G. Donor conception disclosure: directive or non-directive counseling? JOURNAL OF BIOETHICAL INQUIRY. 2016;13(3):369–79.
MLA
Raes, Inez, An Ravelingien, and Guido Pennings. “Donor Conception Disclosure: Directive or Non-directive Counseling?” JOURNAL OF BIOETHICAL INQUIRY 13.3 (2016): 369–379. Print.
@article{8115355,
  abstract     = {It is widely agreed among health professionals that couples using donor insemination should be offered counselling on the topic of donor conception disclosure. However, it is clear from the literature that there has long been a lack of agreement about which counselling approach should be used in this case: a directive or a non-directive approach. In this paper we investigate which approach is ethically justifiable by balancing the two underlying principles of autonomy (non-directive approach) and beneficence (directive approach). To overrule one principle in favour of another, six conditions should be fulfilled. We analyse the arguments in favour of the beneficence principle, and consequently, a directive approach. This analysis shows that two conditions are not met; the principle of autonomy should not be overridden. Therefore, at this moment, a directive counselling approach on donor conception disclosure cannot be ethically justified.},
  author       = {Raes, Inez and Ravelingien, An and Pennings, Guido},
  issn         = {1176-7529},
  journal      = {JOURNAL OF BIOETHICAL INQUIRY},
  language     = {eng},
  number       = {3},
  pages        = {369--379},
  title        = {Donor conception disclosure: directive or non-directive counseling?},
  url          = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11673-015-9686-9},
  volume       = {13},
  year         = {2016},
}

Altmetric
View in Altmetric
Web of Science
Times cited: