Discover Community Create You

Loading publication...

Noodle always counts identifier-free feature events for service operation. With your permission, Google Analytics can also estimate audience and engagement. Search text, publication identifiers, cookies, IP addresses and browser fingerprints are never included in Noodle's first-party event counters.

Privacy details

Article

Potential sperm donors’, recipients’ and their partners’ opinions towards the release of identifying information in Western Australia

18 Jul 2006

Abstract excerpt

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to examine Western Australian potential sperm donors' and recipients' opinions towards the release of identifying information and their intentions to disclose. METHODS: Forty-five potential sperm donors, 33 recipients and 12 partners completed an anonymous questionnaire regarding their opinions on the release of identifying information, whether a child should be told about...

Read the complete abstract on PubMed

Topics

Share this publication in a Topic to start or enrich a Post.

Share to Neuroethics, Human Enhancement, Biomedical Innovations
Share to Organ Donation and Transplantation
Share to Reproductive Health and Technologies

Methodology Data sources Editorial policy Privacy About Contact Helena Bioinformatics

Source

Identifiers

PMID: 16849591
DOI: 10.1093/humrep/del274

Provenance

PubMed metadata and Literature Corpus relationships. Corpus snapshot updated 7 Sept 2026.

Related research

Semantic proximity does not establish scientific evidence.

Research trail→

Click a neighbor to travelStep 1 · 12 closest

Potential sperm donors’, recipients’ and their partners’ opinions towards the release of identifying information in Western AustraliaPMID 16849591Read ↗

UK gamete donors' reflections on the removal of anonymity: implications for recruitmentSemantic proximity Read ↗

The impact of disclosure on donor gamete participants: donors, intended parents and offspringSemantic proximity Read ↗

Disclosure behaviour and intentions among 111 couples following treatment with oocytes or sperm from identity-release donors: follow-up at offspring age 1-4 yearsSemantic proximity Read ↗

Thinking ethically about genetic inheritance: liberal rights, communitarianism and the right to privacy for parents of donor insemination childrenSemantic proximity Read ↗

Disclosure and donor-conceived childrenSemantic proximity Read ↗

The right of the donor to information about children conceived from his or her gametesSemantic proximity Read ↗

Attitudes of sperm, egg and embryo donors and recipients towards genetic information and screening of donorsSemantic proximity Read ↗

The right to know one’s genetic origins and cross-border medically assisted reproductionSemantic proximity Read ↗

Short- and long-term health consequences and current satisfaction levels for altruistic anonymous, identity-release and known oocyte donorsSemantic proximity Read ↗

Consent agreements for cryopreserved embryos: the case for choiceSemantic proximity Read ↗

Beneath the Rhetoric: The Role of Rights in the Practice of Non‐Anonymous Gamete DonationSemantic proximity Read ↗

A survey of 1700 women who formed their families using donor spermatozoaSemantic proximity Read ↗

⌁Select a neighboring publication to make it the new centre.