Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
The study aimed at mapping in a detailed way French lay people’s positions on the disclosure of information that makes possible the tracing of their biological origins for adoptees and for donor conceived persons.
A convenience sample of 151 adults was presented with a set of 20 vignettes that depicted the situation of teenagers (1) who recently learned that one or both of their parents were not their biological parents, (2) who wished to have information about biological parents, and (3) who were denied access to information because of legal dispositions in the country. Participants were asked to judge the extent to which the denial of access to information was defensible. The factors introduced in the vignettes were the teenagers’ age and motives (e.g., an 18-year old boy who was suffering from a genetic illness), and the filiation link (e.g., conceived through sperm donation).
Through cluster analysis, four qualitatively different positions were found: Never Defensible (16% of participants), Not Very Defensible (42%), Depends on Circumstances (13%), and Almost Always Defensible (29%).
The difference in importance that participants in this study attributed to blood filiation – whether it was essential to know about it or not – is reminiscent of the more general opposition between two legal principles regarding the way nationality is conferred: jus sanguinis (right of blood, which applies in England or Germany) versus jus soli (right of soil, which applies in France).
Log in om toegang te krijgen
Met onderstaand(e) abonnement(en) heeft u direct toegang:
American Adoption Congress (1979). Resolution. Washington, DC: American Adoption Congress.
Anderson, N. H. (2008). Unified social cognition. New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Anderson, N. H. (2019). Moral science. New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Cahn, N. (2014). Do tell! The rights of donor-conceived offspring. Hofstra Law Review, 42, 1077–1124.
Child Welfare Information Gateway (2009). Postadoption contact agreements between birth and adoptive families: summary of state law. Washington, DC: Child Welfare Information Gateway.
Clapton, G. (2018). Close relations? The long-term outcomes of adoption reunions. Genealogy, 2(41). https://doi.org/10.3390/genealogy2040041.
Committee of the Rights of the Child (2016). Concluding observations on the fifth periodic report of France. United Nations, New York, NY: Committee of the Rights of the Child, United Nations.
Crawshaw, M., Daniels, K., Adams, D., Bourne, K., van Hooff, J. A. P., Kramer, W., Pasch, L., & Thorn, P. (2016). Emerging models for facilitating contact between people genetically related through donor conception: a preliminary analysis and discussion. Reproductive BioMedicine and Society Online, 1, 71–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbms.2015.10.001. CrossRef
Cushing, A. (2010). I just want more information about who I am: the search experience of sperm-donor offspring, searching for information about their donors and genetic heritage. Information Research, 15(2). http://InformationR.net/ir/415-422/paper428.html.
Freeman, T., Bourne, K., Jadva, V., & Smith, V. (2014). Making connections: contact between sperm donor relations. In T. Freeman, S. Graham, F. Ebtehaj & M. Richards (Eds.), Relatedness in assisted reproduction: Families, origins and identities (pp. 270–295). Cambrigde: Cambridge University Press. CrossRef
Freeman, T., Zadeh, S., Smith, V., & Golombok, S. (2016). Disclosure of sperm donation: a comparison between solo mother and two-parent families with identifiable donors. Reproductive BioMedicine Online, 33, 592–600. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2016.08.004. CrossRef
Glennon, T. (2016). Legal regulation of family creation through gamete donation: access, identity and parentage. In S. Golombok & S. Wilkinson (Eds.), Regulating reproductive donation (pp. 60–83). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. CrossRef
Grotevant, H. D., & von Korff, L. (2011). Adoptive identity. In S. Schwartz, K. Luyckx & V. Vignoles (Eds.), Handbook of identity theory and research (pp. 585–601). New York, NY: Springer. CrossRef
Howe, D., & Feast, J. (2000). Adoption, search and reunion: the long term experience of adopted adults. London: The Children’s Society.
Indekeu, A., D’Hooghe, T., Daniels, K. R., Dierickx, K., & Rober, P. (2014). When ‘sperm’ becomes ‘donor’: transitions in parents’ views of the sperm donor. Human Fertility, 17(4), 269–277. https://doi.org/10.3109/14647273.2014.910872. CrossRef
Isaksson, S., Skoog Svanberg, A., Sydsjo, G., Thurin-Kjellberg, A., Karlstrom, P. O., Solensten, N. G., & Lampic, C. (2011). Two decades after legislation on identifiable donors in Sweden: are recipient couples ready to be open about using gamete donation. Human Reproduction, 26(4), 853–860. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/deq365. CrossRef
Isaksson, S., Sydsjo, G., Skoog Svanberg, A., & Lampic, C. (2012). Disclosure behaviour and intentions among 111 couples following treatment with oocytes or sperm from identity-release donors: follow-up at offspring age 1–4 years. Human Reproduction, 27(10), 2998–3007. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/des285. CrossRef
Isaksson, S., Sydsjö, G., Skoog Svanberg, A., & Lampic, C. (2014). Preferences and needs regarding future contact with donation offspring among identity-release gamete donors: results from the Swedish Study on Gamete Donation. Fertility and Sterility, 102(4), 1160–1166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2014.06.038. CrossRef
Kalampalikis, N., Doumergue, M., & Zadeh, S., French Federation of CECOS. (2018). Sperm donor regulation and disclosure intentions: results from a nationwide multi-centre study in France. Reproductive Biomedicine & Society Online, 5, 38–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbms.2018.02.001. CrossRef
Kenney, N. J., & McGowan, M. L. (2010). Looking back: oocyte donors’ retrospective evaluations of their motivations, expectations, and experiences during their first donation cycle. Fertility and Sterility, 93(2), 455–466. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2008.09.081.E. CrossRef
Klotz, M. (2016). Wayward relations: novel searches of the donor conceived for genetic kinship. Medical Anthropology, 35(1), 45–57. https://doi.org/10.1080/01459740.2015.1012615. CrossRef
Kramer, W., & Cahn, N. (2013). Finding our families: a first-of-its-kind book for donor-conceived people and their families. New York, NY: Penguin.
Lassalzede, T., Paci, M., Rouzier, J., Carez, S., Gnisci, A., Saias-Magnan, J., Deveze, C., Perrin, J., & Metzler-Guillemain, C. (2017). Sperm donor conception and disclosure to children: a 10-year retrospective follow-up study of parental attitudes in one French center for the study and preservation of eggs and sperm (CECOS). Fertility and Sterility, 108(2), 247–253. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2017.06.001. CrossRef
Legifrance (2002). Article L.511-10 du Code Pénal. https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichCodeArticle.do?cidTexte=LEGITEXT000006070719&idArticle=LEGIARTI000006418897&dateTexte=&categorieLien=cid.
Legifrance (2011). Loi 2011-814 relative à la bioéthique. https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do?cidTexte=JORFTEXT000024323102&categorieLien=id.
Legislation Government United Kingdom (1976). Adoption act 1976. London, England: Legislation Government United Kingdom.
Mignot, J. F. (2017). Full adoption in England and Wales, and France: a comparative history of law and practice (1926–2015). Adoption and Fostering, 34, 87–158. https://doi.org/10.1177/0308575917704551.
Muñoz Sastre, M. T., Petitfils, C., Sorum, P. C., & Mullet, E. (2015). A mapping of the positions of adults in Toulouse, France, regarding induced abortion. European Journal of Contraception and Reproductive Health Care, 20, 158–169. https://doi.org/10.3109/13625187.2014.971741. CrossRef
Muñoz Sastre, M. T., Sorum, P. C., & Mullet, E. (2016). The acceptability of assisted reproductive technology among French lay people. Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psychology, 34, 329–342. https://doi.org/10.1080/02646838.2016.1188279. CrossRef
Ravitsky, V. (2010). Knowing where you come from: the rights of donor-conceived individuals and the meaning of genetic relatedness. Minnesota Journal of Law, Science and Technology, 11(2), 655–684. https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/mjlst/vol11/iss2/9
Ravitsky, V. (2017). The right to know one’s genetic origins and cross-border medically assisted reproduction. Israel Journal of Health Policy Research, 6(3). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13584-016-0125-0.
Robinson, E. B. (2005). Adoption and loss: the hidden grief. London: Clova.
Slutsky, J., Jadva, V., Freeman, T., Persaud, S., Steele, M., Steele, H., Kramer, W., & Golombok, S. (2016). Integrating donor conception into identity development: adolescents in fatherless families. Fertility and Sterility, 106(1), 202–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.02.033. CrossRef
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2017). Citizenship. Stanford, CA: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989). Convention. United Nations, New York, NY: UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.
van den Broeck, U., Vandermeeren, M., Vanderschueren, D., Enzlin, P., Demyttenaere, K., & D’Hooghe, T. (2013). A systematic review of sperm donors: demographic characteristics, attitudes, motives and experiences of the process of sperm donation. Human Reproduction Update, 19(1), 37–51. https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dms039. CrossRef
- Mapping French People’s Positions Regarding the Children’s Right to Know their Biological Parents’ Identity
Maria Teresa Muñoz Sastre
- Springer US
Journal of Child and Family Studies
Print ISSN: 1062-1024
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-2843