Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T13:51:04.883Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Giving, Receiving, Repaying: Gamete Donors and Donor Policies in Reproductive Medicine

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 March 2009

Simone B. Novaes
Simone B. Novaes
Affiliation:
Centre de Sociologie de I'Ethique, EHESS-CNRS
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Current practices of donor recruitment for medical fertilization procedures are analyzed in the light of Marcel Mauss' essay on the gift in primitive societies. In this perspective, donor policies seem primarily designed to spare infertile recipients the obligation to recognize the donor's contribution to these procedures, thus avoiding the kinship issues that they raise. Questions of meaning concerning donation, social recognition of the donor's role, and clarification of the relational issues underlying fertilization procedures are nevertheless essential elements in establishing their social legitimacy.

Type
General Essays
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 5 , Issue 4 , October 1989 , pp. 639 - 657
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1989

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

d'Adler, M. A. & Teulade, M.Les sorciers de la vie. Paris: Gallimard, 1986. (Written account of a four-part television documentary, with the same title, on reproductive and gene technology.)Google Scholar
Alnot, M. O., Delaisi, de Parseval G., Granet, P. & Da, Lage C.Sperme, don, contre-don. Le Concours Médical, 1982, 104, 2915–18.Google Scholar
Annas, G. J.Artificial insemination. Beyond the best interests of the donor. The Hastings Center Report, 1979, 9, 14–15, 43.Google ScholarPubMed
Brozan, N.Babies from donated eggs: Growing use stirs questions. New York Times, 01 18, 1988, 1, 9.Google Scholar
Bydlowski, M.Les ovocytes, aspects psychologiques. Hormones-Reproduction-Métabolisme, 1986, 3, 160–61.Google Scholar
Cadras, M.with the collaboration of Tornikian, J. Docteur Geller: “La mère est un incubateur.” Enfant d 'Abord, 1986, 112, 25–30.Google Scholar
Dajoux, R.L'Insémination, l'espoir. Marseille: Mediprint, 1979.Google Scholar
Da, Lage C., Alnot, M. O., Granet, P. & Delaisi, de Parseval G. Les donneurs de sperme. Colloque international: Lespères aujourd'hui. Edited by the Conseil Supérieur de 1'Information sexuelle, da la Regulation de naissances et de l' Education familiale. Paris: INED, 1982, 68–72.Google Scholar
David, G.Les banques de sperme en France. Archives Françaises de Pédiatrie, 1975, 32, 401–04.Google Scholar
David, G. Don et utilisation du sperme. Actes du Colloque Génétique, Procréation et Droit. Arles: Actes Sud, 1985, 203–24.Google Scholar
David, G. & Lansac, J. The organization of the centers for for the study and the preservation of semen in France. In David, G. & Price, W.S. (eds.), Human artificial insemination and semen preservation. New York: Plenum, 1980, 15–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Delaisi, de Parseval G.Questions à propos des donneurs de sperme. Génitif, 1980, 2, 15–21.Google Scholar
Delaisi, de Parseval G.A propos du don d'organes. Revue de Médecine Psychosomatique et de Psychologie Médicale, 1980, 22, 165–70.Google Scholar
Donchin, A. Reproductive technology and moral responsibility: Redefining parenthood. The tasks of contemporary philosophy: Proceedings of the 10th International Wittgenstein Symposium. Wien: Hölder-Pichler-Tempsky, 1986, 265–67.Google Scholar
Ewerlöf, G.Artificial insemination – Legislation. Current Sweden, 1985, 329, 1–10.Google Scholar
Ewerlöf, G. Swedish legislation on artificial insemination. Typescript obtained from the author.Google Scholar
Excerpts from decision by New Jersey Supreme Court in the Baby M case. New York Times, 02 4, 1988, 14.Google Scholar
Finegold, W. J.Artificial insemination, 2nd edition. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas, 1976.Google Scholar
Fox, R. C. & Swazey, J. P.The courage to fail: A social view of organ transplants and dialysis. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 1978.Google Scholar
Frydman, R. Don d'ovules. Actes du Colloque Génetique, Procréation et Droit. Arles: Actes Sud, 1985, 225–28.Google Scholar
Gex, P. & Czyba, J. C.Le don de sperme. Cahiers Médicaux, 1982, 7, 1627–29.Google Scholar
Goleman, D. Motivation of surrogate mothers. New York Times, 01 20, 1987, 15–16.Google Scholar
Granet, P. Aspects psychologiques du don de sperme. Aspects psychologiques de l'insémination artificielle. Manuel, C. & Czyba, J. C. (eds.). Villeurbanne: SIMEP, 1983, 57–67.Google Scholar
Gregoire, A. T. & Mayer, R. C.The impregnators. Fertility and Sterility, 1965, 16, 130–34.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hanley, R. Father of Baby M granted custody; contract upheld, New York Times, 04 1, 1987, B3.Google Scholar
Hanley, R. Surrogate deals for mothers held illegal in Jersey. New York Times, 02 4, 1988, 14.Google Scholar
Hanley, R. Three experts say Baby M's mother is unstable. New York Times, 02 11, 1987.Google Scholar
Héritier-Augé, F. Don et utilisation de sperme et d'ovocytes. Mères de substitution. Un point de vue fondé sur l'anthropologie sociale. Actes du Colloque Génétique, Procréation et Droit. Arles: Actes Sud, 1985, 237–53.Google Scholar
Huerre, P. Psychological aspects of semen donation. In David, G. & Price, W.S. (eds.), Human artificial insemination and semen preservation. New York: Plenum, 1980, 461–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keane, N. (with Breo, D.L.). The surrogate mother. New York: Everest House, 1981.Google Scholar
Mauss, M.The gift: Forms and functions of exchange in archaic societies. Ian, Cunnison (trans.). London: Cohen and West, 1970.Google Scholar
Novaes, S.Le don de sperme vu par des donneurs de sang. Hormones-Reproduction-Métabolisme, 1986, 3, 153–57.Google Scholar
Novaes, S. B.Semen banking and artificial insemination by donor in France: Social and medical discourse. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 1986, 2, 219–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Novaes, S. & Fougeroux, F. L'Insémination artificielle vue par les donneurs de sang. In Cahiers Science-Technologie-Sociéte no 11: Ethique et biologie. Paris: Ed. du CNRS, 1986, 185–97.Google Scholar
Parker, P.Motivation of surrogate mothers: Initial findings. American Journal of Psychiatry, 1983, 140, 117–18.Google ScholarPubMed
Simmel, G. Faithfulness and gratitude. In Wolff, K. H (ed. & trans.), The sociology of Georg Simmel. London: The Free Press of Glencoe, 1964, 379–95.Google Scholar
Simmons, R. G., Klein, S. D. & Simmons, R. L.The gift of life: The social and psychological impact of organ transplantation. New York: Wiley, 1977.Google Scholar
Swedish Committee to Investigate the Matter of Artificial Insemination. Barn genom insemination [Children conceived by artificial insemination]. Stockholm: Justitiedepartement, 1983.Google Scholar
Titmuss, R. M.The gift relationship: From human blood to social policy. New York: Vintage Books, 1972.Google Scholar
To serve the best interests of the child [Excerpts from the decision by Judge, Harvey R. Sorkow]. New York Times, 04 1, 1987, B2.Google Scholar