Book contents
- 50 Big Debates in Reproductive Medicine
- Series page
- 50 Big Debates in Reproductive Medicine
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Contributors
- Foreword
- Introduction
- Section I Limits for IVF
- Section II IVF Add-ons
- Section III The Best Policy
- Section IV Embryology
- Section V Ethics and Statistics
- 30A Sex Selection Should Be Permitted for Family Balancing
- 30B Sex Selection Should Be Permitted for Family Balancing
- 31A Reproductive Medicine Should Be Publicly Funded
- 31B Reproductive Medicine Should Be Publicly Funded
- 32A Gamete Donation Should Be Anonymous
- 32B Gamete Donation Should Be Anonymous
- 33A Uterus Transplantation Is a Step Too Far
- 33B Uterus Transplantation Is a Step Too Far
- 34A Meta-analysis Should Not Be Considered Class A Evidence
- 34B Meta-analysis Should Not Be Considered Class A Evidence
- Section VI Male-factor Infertility
- Section VII Genetics
- Section VIII Ovarian Stimulation
- Section IX Hormones and the Environment
- Index
- References
32A - Gamete Donation Should Be Anonymous
For
from Section V - Ethics and Statistics
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 25 November 2021
- 50 Big Debates in Reproductive Medicine
- Series page
- 50 Big Debates in Reproductive Medicine
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Contributors
- Foreword
- Introduction
- Section I Limits for IVF
- Section II IVF Add-ons
- Section III The Best Policy
- Section IV Embryology
- Section V Ethics and Statistics
- 30A Sex Selection Should Be Permitted for Family Balancing
- 30B Sex Selection Should Be Permitted for Family Balancing
- 31A Reproductive Medicine Should Be Publicly Funded
- 31B Reproductive Medicine Should Be Publicly Funded
- 32A Gamete Donation Should Be Anonymous
- 32B Gamete Donation Should Be Anonymous
- 33A Uterus Transplantation Is a Step Too Far
- 33B Uterus Transplantation Is a Step Too Far
- 34A Meta-analysis Should Not Be Considered Class A Evidence
- 34B Meta-analysis Should Not Be Considered Class A Evidence
- Section VI Male-factor Infertility
- Section VII Genetics
- Section VIII Ovarian Stimulation
- Section IX Hormones and the Environment
- Index
- References
Summary
The right to know one’s genetic origins should not be recognised as a moral right because it protects no important interest. The knowledge of one’s genetic origin is neither sufficient nor necessary for the construction of one’s identity. The suffering of some donor-conceived people is based on the misconception that this knowledge is necessary. The empirical evidence generated by psychological research on donor-conceived families has shown convincingly that not knowing that one is donor conceived and knowing about one’s donor conception but not knowing one’s donor does not lead to significant differences in psychological well-being and family functioning. A new argument by some people who favour donor identifiability is that donor anonymity can no longer be guaranteed. Although correct, this fact has no implications for the normative claim about the right to know. If anonymity was agreed between donor and recipients, this agreement should be respected even when, or especially when, it can be broken.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- 50 Big Debates in Reproductive Medicine , pp. 165 - 166Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2021