Jaká je česká dárkyně oocytů?
Analýza profilu


Authors: T. Rumpíková 1;  I. Oborná 2;  S. Bělašková 3;  D. Rumpík 1
Authors‘ workplace: Klinika reprodukční medicíny a gynekologie, Zlín, vedoucí lékař MUDr. D. Rumpík 1;  Porodnicko-gynekologická klinika LF UP a FN, Olomouc, přednosta prof. MUDr. R. Pilka, Ph. D. 2;  Mezinárodní centrum klinického výzkumu, FN u sv. Anny, Brno 3
Published in: Ceska Gynekol 2017; 82(5): 372-382

Overview

Objective:
The aim of our study was to investigate (a) the basic socio-demographic characteristics of Czech oocytes donors, (b) their attitudes towards anonymous or nonanonymous donation and (c) their motivations to donate oocytes.

Design:
Original article.

Setting:
Clinic of Reproductive Medicine and Gynecology Zlin.

Methods:
A total of 215 oocytes donors participated in this study, which was undertaken in years 2015–2016. The data were obtained by an anonymous questionnaire. Descriptive and inferential statistics were used to analyzed the data.

Conclusion:
The results show that (a) mean age of oocytes donors was 26 years. Single women (60%) with secondary level education (57%) prevailed. More than half of them (55%) had at least one child on their own. About 39% of donors were fully employed, 29% women on maternity leave and 16% students. (b) For the majority of participants the anonymity is very important. Almost 55% of oocyte donors prefer to stay in anonymity and 20% were not sure. In case that anonymity would be abolished, only 20% of the Czech oocyte donors would be willing to donate. There were no differences based on education (p = 0,358), age (p = 0,112), marital (p = 0,741) and maternal status (p = 0,691). (c) The main motivation to donation was altruism (helping infertile people), no less important factors were the finantial motivation and the testing own fertility. The altruistic motivation to donate was significantly related to the wish to remain anonymous (p = 0,0002).

Conclusion:
The typical Czech oocyte donor is young, mainly altruistic woman with her own child who wants to stay in anonymous relation to the couple whom she is helping as well as to the possible genetic offspring.

Keywords:
oocytes donors, anonymity, open identity, donor conception


Sources

1. Abdalla, H. Ovum donation. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol, 1991, 3(5), p. 674–677.

2. Baetens, P., Devroey, P., Camus, M., et al. Counselling couples and donors for oocyte donation: the decision to use either known or anonymous oocytes. Hum Reprod, 2000, 15(2), p. 476–484.

3. Bay, B., Larsen, PB., Kesmodel, US., et al. Danish sperm donors across three decades: motivations and attitudes. Fertil Steril, 2014, 101(1), p. 252–257.

4. Bendermacher, N. Beyond alpha: Lower bounds for the reliability of tests. J Modern Applied Statistical Methods, 2010, 9(1), p. 95–102.

5. Blyth, E., Frith, L. Donor-conceived people’s access to genetic and biographical history: an analysis of provisions in different jurisdictions permitting disclosure of donor identity. Int J Law, Policy Family, 2009, 23(2), p. 174–191.

6. Bracewell-Milnes, T., Saso, S., Al-Memar, M., et al. Investigating psychosocial attitudes, motivations and experiences of oocyte donors, recipients and egg sharers: A systematic review. Hum Reprod Update, 2016, 22(4), p. 450–465.

7. Brewaeys, A., Naaktgeboren, N., De Bruyn, JK., et al. Donor insemination: Dutch parents’ opinions about confidentiality and donor anonymity and the emotional adjustment of their children. Hum Reprod, 1997, 12(7), p. 1591–1597.

8. Brewaeys, A., de Bruyn, JK., Louwe, LA., et al. Anonymous or identity-registered sperm donors? A study of Dutch recipients’ choices. Hum Reprod, 2005, 20(3), p. 820–824.

9. Cahn, N. Do Tell! The rights of donor-conceived offspring. Hofstra Law Review, 2014, 42, p. 1077.

10. Daniels, KR., Blyth, E., Crawshaw, M., et al. Short communication: previous semen donors and their views regarding the sharing of information with offspring. Hum Reprod, 2005, 20(6), p. 1670–1675.

11. Daniels, KR., Kramer, W., Perez, MV. Semen donors who are open to contact with their offspring: issues and implications for them and their families. Reprod Biomed Online, 2012, 25(7), p. 670–677.

12. Daniels, KR., Grace, VM., Gillett, WR. Factors associated with parents’ decisions to tell their adult offspring about the offspring’s donor conception. Hum Reprod, 2011, 26(10), p. 2783–2790.

13. Dean, NL., Edwards, RG. Oocyte donation – implications for fertility treatment in the nineties. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol, 1994, 6(2), p. 160–165.

14. Godman, KM., Sanders, K., Rosenberg, M., et al. Potential sperm donors’, recipients’ and their partners’ opinions towards the release of identifying information in Western Australia. Hum Reprod, 2006, 21(11), p. 3022–3026.

15. Golombok, S., Brewaeys, A., Cook, R., et al. The European study of assisted reproduction families: family functioning and child development. Hum Reprod, 1996, 11(10), p. 2324–2331.

16. Golombok, S., Brewaeys, A., Giavazzi, MT., et al. The European study of assisted reproduction families: the transition to adolescence. Hum Reprod, 2002, 17(3), p. 830–840.

17. Golombok, S., Murray, C., Brinsden, P., et al. Social versus biological parenting: family functioning and the socioemotional development of children conceived by egg or sperm donation. J Child Psychol Psychiatry, 1999, 40(4), p. 519–527.

18. Gottlieb, C., Lalos, O., Lindblad, F. Disclosure of donor insemination to the child: the impact of Swedish legislation on couples’ attitudes. Hum Reprod, 2000, 15(9), p. 2052–2056.

19. Hammarberg, K., Carmichael, M., Tinney, L., et al. Gamete donors’ and recipients’ evaluation of donor counselling: A prospective longitudinal cohort study. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol, 2008, 48(6), p. 601–606.

20. IFFS Surveillance 2016. Global Reproductive Health, 2016, 1(1e), p. 1–143.

21. Isaksson, S., Skoog Svanberg, A., Sydsjö, G., et al. Two decades after legislation on identifiable donors in Sweden: are recipient couples ready to be open about using gamete donation? Hum Reprod, 2011, 26(4), p. 853–860.

22. Jadva, V., Freeman, T., Kramer, W., et al. Sperm and oocyte donors’ experiences of anonymous donation and subsequent contact with their donor offspring. Hum Reprod, 2011, 26(3), p. 638–645.

23. Janssens, PMW., Simons, AHM., van Kooij, RJ., et al. A new Dutch Law regulating provision of identifying information of donors to offspring: background, content and impact. Hum Reprod, 2006, 21(4), p.852–856.

24. Kirkman, M., Bourne, K., Fisher, J., et al. Gamete donors’ expectations and experiences of contact with their donor offspring. Hum Reprod, 2014, 29(4), p. 731–738.

25. Lalos, A., Gottlieb, C., Lalos, O. Legislated right for donor-insemination children to know their genetic origin: a study of parental thinking. Hum Reprod, 2007, 22(6), p. 1759–1768.

26. Lampic, C., Skoog Svanberg, A., Sydsjö, G. Attitudes towards disclosure and relationship to donor offspring among a national cohort of identity-release oocyte and sperm donors. Hum Reprod, 2014, 29(9), p. 1978–1986.

27. Larsen, EC., Loft, A., Andersen, AN., et al. Oocyte donation in women cured of cancer with bone marrow transplantation including total body irradiation in adolescence. Hum Reprod, 2000, 15(7), p. 1505–1508.

28. Laruelle, C., Place, I., Demeestere, I., et al. Anonymity and secrecy options of recipient couples and donors, and ethnic origin influence in three types of oocyte donation. Hum Reprod, 2011, 26(2), p. 382–390.

29. Likert, R. A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Arch Psychology, 1032, 22(140), p. 55.

30 Mac Dougall, K., Becker, G., Scheib, JE., et al. Strategies for disclosure: how parents approach telling their children that they were conceived with donor gametes. Fertil Steril, 2007, 87(3), p. 524–533.

31. Matějček, Z., Bubleová, V., Kovařík, J. Pozdní následky psychické deprivace a subdeprivace. Praha : Psychiatrické centrum Praha, 1997. ISBN 80-85121-89-1.

32. Mills, M., Rindfuss, R., McDonald, P., et al. Why do people postpone parenthood? Reasons and social policy incentives. Hum Reprod Update, 2011, 17(6), p. 848–860.

33. Murray, C., MacCallum, F., Golombok, S. Egg donation parents and their children: follow-up at age 12 years. Fertil Steril, 2006, 85(3), p. 610–618.

34. Pennings, G. Commentary on Craft and Thornhill: new ethical strategies to recruit gamete donors. Reprod Biomed Online, 2005, 10(3), p. 307–309.

35. Pennings, G., de Mouzon, J., Shenfield, F., et al. Socio-demographic and fertility-related characteristics and motivations of oocyte donors in eleven European countries. Hum Reprod, 2014, 29(5), p.1076–1089.

36. Pennings, G., de Wert, G., Shenfield, F., et al. ESHRE task force on ethics and law 15: cross-border reproductive care. Hum Reprod, 2008, 23(10), p. 2182–2184.

37. Pfeffer, N. Eggs-ploiting women: a critical feminist analysis of the different principles in transplant and fertility tourism. Reprod Biomed Online, 2011, 23(5), p. 634–641.

38. Plante, BJ., Fritz, MA. A case report of successful pregnancy in a patient with pure 46, XY gonadal dysgenesis. Fertil Steril, 2008, 90(5), 2015.e1–2015.

39. Purewal, S., van den Akker, OBA. Systematic review of oocyte donation: investigating attitudes, motivations and experiences. Hum Reprod Update, 2009, 15(5), p. 499–515.

40. Raoul-Duval, A., Letur-Konirsch, H., Frydman, R. Anonymous oocyte donation: a psychological study of recipients, donors and children. Hum Reprod, 1992, 7(1), p. 51.

41. Ripper, M. Australian sperm donors: Public image and private motives of gay, bi-sexual and heterosexual donors. Health Soc Rev, 2008, 17(3), p. 313–325.

42. Shenfield, F., de Mouzon, J., Pennings, et al. Cross border reproductive care in six European countries. Hum Reprod, 2010, 25(6), p. 1361–1368.

43. Shenfield, F., Pennings, G., De Mouzon, et al. ESHRE’s good practice guide for cross-border reproductive care for centers and practitioners. Hum Reprod, 2011, 26(7), p. 1625–1627.

44. Skoog Svanberg, A., Lampic, C., Gejerwall, AL., et al. Gamete donors’ motivation in a Swedish national sample: is there any ambivalence? A descriptive study. Acta Obstet Gyn Scan, 2012, 91, p. 944–951.

45. Söderström-Anttila, V. Pregnancy and child outcome after oocyte donation. Hum Reprod Update, 2001, 7(1), p. 28–32.

46. Söderström-Anttila, V., Sälevaara, M., Suikkari, AM. Increasing openness in oocyte donation families regarding disclosure over 15 years. Hum Reprod, 2010, 25(10), p. 2535–2542.

47. Thorn, P., Katzorke, T., Daniels, KR. Semen donors in Germany: a study exploring motivations and attitudes. Hum Reprod, 2008, 23(11), p. 2415–2420.

48. Trounson, A., Leeton, J., Besanko, M., et al. Pregnancy established in an infertile patient after transfer of a donated embryo fertilised in vitro. BMJ, 1983, 286, p. 835–838.

49. UZIS/NRAR. Asistovaná reprodukce v České republice 2014. Praha.

50. van den Akker, O. A review of family donor constructs: current research and future directions. Hum Reprod Update, 2006, 12(2), p. 91–101.

51. Van den Broeck, U., Vandermeeren, M., Vanderschueren, D., et al. A systematic review of sperm donors: demographic characteristics, attitudes, motives and experiences of the process of sperm donation. Hum Reprod Update, 2013, 19(1), p. 37–51.

52. Vanfraussen, K., Ponjaert-Kristoffersen, I., Brewaeys, A. Family functioning in lesbian families created by donor insemination. Am J Orthopsychiatry, 2003, 73(1), p. 78–90.

Labels
Paediatric gynaecology Gynaecology and obstetrics Reproduction medicine

Article was published in

Czech Gynaecology

Issue 5

2017 Issue 5

Most read in this issue
Login
Forgotten password

Don‘t have an account?  Create new account

Forgotten password

Enter the email address that you registered with. We will send you instructions on how to set a new password.

Login

Don‘t have an account?  Create new account