Wendland, C. L., Burn, F., & Hill, C. (1996). Donor insemination: a comparison of lesbian couples, heterosexual couples and single women. Fertility and sterility, 65(4), 764-770. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0015-0282(16)58211-9
Wendland CL, Burn F, Hill C. Donor insemination: a comparison of lesbian couples, heterosexual couples and single women. Fertil Steril. 1996;65(4):764-770. doi:10.1016/s0015-0282(16)58211-9
Wendland, Claire L., et al. "Donor insemination: a comparison of lesbian couples, heterosexual couples and single women." Fertility and sterility, vol. 65, no. 4, 1996, pp. 764-770.
For EndNote, Zotero or Mendeley:
License
No open license is recorded for this paper. Reuse terms are set by the publisher.
To compare single women, lesbian couples, and heterosexual couples receiving therapeutic donor insemination (TDI).
Design
Chart review followed by anonymous mail questionnaires to donor insemination recipients and their partners.
Setting
Infertility clinic in a university hospital.
Patients
One hundred fifteen women receiving donor insemination were identified by chart review.
Results
Too few single women responded for reliable comparison. Lesbian women were similar to married women in age, education, duration, and outcome of donor insemination. When considering alternatives to TDI, married women were more likely to consider adoption and lesbians were most likely to consider using a known semen donor or having intercourse with a man aware of their desire to have a child. Married couples were less likely to tell others, including the child, about conception by donor insemination. They were also less likely to support disclosing identifying data about the donor to the child. Lesbians were more likely to report stress in their relationships as a result of TDI. Married men were most likely to support mandatory counseling before TDI initiation.
To characterize the extent and sources of imprecision in histologic dating of the endometrial biopsy. Duplicate endometrial biopsies from 25 women were dated by five evaluators on two separate occasions to evaluate the overall precision of the measure. Using variance component analysis, estimates of intrauterine, intraevaluator, and interevaluator variability were determined. Samples were obtained during outpatient fertility testing. Evaluators were colleagues at the same institution. PATIENTS, Women presenting with infertility undergoing routine evaluation. None. Variability in histologic dating of the endometrium. Inconsistencies between evaluators accounted for 65% of the observed variability, whereas 27% was because of inconsistencies in duplicate readings by the same evaluator. Regional differences in the uterus accounted for only 8% of the total variability. The overall error from these sources have the potential to result in a substantial false-positive rate for diagnosis of luteal phase defect.
Related research
Donor Gametes and Surrogacy · Sperm and Embryo Donation
Factors influencing the probability of conception after artificial insemination with donor semen were investigated in a series of 80 infertile couples. Overall, 46 pregnancies were achieved for a crude pregnancy rate of 58%. Life table analysis showed a cumulative probability of conception of 97.1% at the end of 12 cycles and an average fecundability of 15.1%. These results were achieved using a single insemination per cycle and individualizing the day of insemination based on the woman's basal body temperature. Women who had been pregnant previously had a significantly better fecundability than nulligravid women (P less than .05). The overall rates of conception in those women who required therapy for ovulatory dysfunction were the same as normal women although the fecundability was somewhat lower. Women who had abdominal pathology had an overall conception rate of 23%.
Donor Gametes and Surrogacy · Donor Conceived Outcomes
Shelton KH et al., 2009·International Journal of Behavioral Development·Free to read
The aim of this study was to examine whether there was variation in levels of psychological adjustment among children conceived through Assisted Reproductive Technologies using the parents’ gametes (homologous), sperm donation, egg donation, embryo donation and surrogacy. Information was provided by parents about the psychological functioning of 769 children aged 5 to 9 years who had been born using ART (from the five groups described). Comparisons were made between the different conception groups, to UK national norms and, for a sub-sample of multiple births, to an age-matched twin sample. No differences were found between the conception groups except that fathers from the egg donation group rated children higher in conduct problems compared to other ART groups. No effects were observed by ART treatment type (ICSI vs. IVF, GIFT and IUI). There was some evidence of lower conduct problems and prosocial behaviour among children conceived through homologous IVF compared to national norms. Taken together, however, consistent differences between groups and in comparison to naturally conceived children were not apparent for mother- or father-rated adjustment problems. Children conceived with assisted reproductive technologies, regardless of whether they are genetically related or unrelated to their parents or born by gestational surrogacy do not differ in their levels of psychological adjustment. Nor do they appear to be at greater risk of psychological adjustment problems in middle childhood compared to naturally conceived children.
Requests by single women for artificial insemination by donor (AID) raise important ethical issues concerning the obligations of physicians and the well-being of the children who would be conceived. Specific objections to AID for single women can be raised, including that the absence of a father may adversely affect the child or that a lesbian mother may influence the child to become homosexual. A review of the relevant social science research indicates, however, that these and other objections are not supported by the available data. In support of AID for single women it can be argued that the life of the child who would be produced could be expected to have value, considered in itself. Consideration of the various aspects of the issue suggests that AID for single women is permissible in selected cases and that the physician has a right to refuse to carry out such requests.
Jadva V et al., 2009·Human reproduction (Oxford, England)
This study presents findings from a large sample of donor offspring who are aware of the nature of their conception. Importantly, this is one of the first studies to compare the views of offspring told of their origins during childhood to those who found out during adulthood. Online questionnaires were completed anonymously by donor offspring who were members of the Donor Sibling Registry, a US-based worldwide registry that helps donor-conceived individuals search for and contact their donor and donor siblings (i.e. half-siblings). Data were obtained on offspring's feelings about being donor conceived and their feelings towards their parents. Offspring of single mothers and lesbian couples learnt of their donor origins earlier than offspring of heterosexual couples. Those told later in life reported more negative feelings regarding their donor conception than those told earlier. Offspring's feelings towards their parents were less clear, with some of those told later reporting more positive feelings and others reporting more negative feelings. Offspring from heterosexual-couple families were more likely to feel angry at being lied to by their mothers than by their fathers. The most common feeling towards fathers was 'sympathetic'. Age of disclosure is important in determining donor offspring's feelings about their donor conception. It appears it is less detrimental for children to be told about their donor conception at an early age.
Assisted Reproduction › Donor Gametes and Surrogacy › Sperm and Embryo Donation · Ethics and Policy › Reproductive Ethics › LGBTQ Rights · Ethics and Policy › Reproductive Ethics › Third Party Reproduction
PMID 8654636 8654636 DOI 10.1016/s0015-0282(16)58211-9 10.1016/s0015-0282(16)58211-9 Wendland et al. 1996, Wendland 1996
Cite this article
Wendland, C. L., Burn, F., & Hill, C. (1996). Donor insemination: a comparison of lesbian couples, heterosexual couples and single women. Fertility and sterility, 65(4), 764-770. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0015-0282(16)58211-9
Wendland CL, Burn F, Hill C. Donor insemination: a comparison of lesbian couples, heterosexual couples and single women. Fertil Steril. 1996;65(4):764-770. doi:10.1016/s0015-0282(16)58211-9
Wendland, Claire L., et al. "Donor insemination: a comparison of lesbian couples, heterosexual couples and single women." Fertility and sterility, vol. 65, no. 4, 1996, pp. 764-770.
Keywords
Adoption, Adult, Confidentiality, Counseling, Female, Homosexuality, Female/psychology, Humans, Insemination, Artificial, Heterologous/psychology, Male, Pregnancy, Sexual Behavior/psychology, Single Parent/psychology, Social Support, Surveys and Questionnaires, Truth Disclosure
05fs6jp91