Abstract
Summary of key findings
•The vast majority of post-2005 donors interviewed for this study supported the introduction of identity-release legislation and all were open to contact from offspring in the future.
•All donors reported that their overwhelming motivation to donate was to help others to become parents.
•The motivation to donate was often expressed in terms of a civic responsibility to share their surplus with others who were in need
•All donors rejected the idea that they had donated ‘for the money’ with many expressing the view that to donate gametes for solely financial motivations was morally wrong.
•Some donors were able to accept payments offered to them without undermining their conception of donation as an altruistic act. However, this was more or less possible for some donors with (gendered) clinic practices and wider cultural discourses often inhibiting this position for male donors.
•Some (largely female) donors experienced a more personal connection with their imagined recipient and several expressed a desire to find out more about, or meet, them.
•In negotiating their relationship to offspring donors were subject to contradictory cultural pressures. Whilst recognising the potential need of offspring to contact their ‘donor parent,’ donors were conscious of the symbolic threat they presented to recipients and sought to avoid ‘treading on their toes.’
•The vast majority of post-2005 donors interviewed for this study supported the introduction of identity-release legislation and all were open to contact from offspring in the future.
•All donors reported that their overwhelming motivation to donate was to help others to become parents.
•The motivation to donate was often expressed in terms of a civic responsibility to share their surplus with others who were in need
•All donors rejected the idea that they had donated ‘for the money’ with many expressing the view that to donate gametes for solely financial motivations was morally wrong.
•Some donors were able to accept payments offered to them without undermining their conception of donation as an altruistic act. However, this was more or less possible for some donors with (gendered) clinic practices and wider cultural discourses often inhibiting this position for male donors.
•Some (largely female) donors experienced a more personal connection with their imagined recipient and several expressed a desire to find out more about, or meet, them.
•In negotiating their relationship to offspring donors were subject to contradictory cultural pressures. Whilst recognising the potential need of offspring to contact their ‘donor parent,’ donors were conscious of the symbolic threat they presented to recipients and sought to avoid ‘treading on their toes.’
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Place of Publication | Edinburgh |
| Publisher | University of Edinburgh |
| Number of pages | 20 |
| Publication status | Published - 2016 |