P–477 The child’s right to know vs. the parents’ right not to tell: the attitudes of couples undergoing fertility treatments towards identity-release gamete donation

2021 ◽  
Vol 36 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
J Simas ◽  
D Braga ◽  
A Setti ◽  
R Melamed ◽  
A Iaconell ◽  
...  

Abstract Study question Do couples undergoing assisted reproduction treatments (ART) have a different perception of anonymous vs identity-release gamete donation than a population interested in the subject? Summary answer Compared with a population interested in the subject, more couples undergoing ART believed the child shouldn’t be given information that would identify the gamete-donor. What is known already Recent research has investigated the psychological well-being of parents and children born through gamete donation, focusing on the possibility of having the donor’s identity revealed. Gamete donors have traditionally been anonymous to recipients and offspring; however, there is a global trend towards programs using donors that are identifiable to the resulting offspring at maturity. While some countries only allow the use of identity-release egg donation, others only allow anonymous-donation, and in some countries both types of donation are practiced. However, the attitudes concerning anonymous vs identity-release gamete donation, in a country where only anonymous donation is allowed, are still unknown. Study design, size, duration This cross-sectional study was performed from 01/Sep/2020 to 15/Dec/2020. For that, surveys through online-platforms were conducted, including either patients undergoing ART, (ART-group, n = 358) or those interested in the subject, who accessed the website of a university-affiliated IVF-center (interested-group, n = 122). Participants in the ART-group were invited via e-mail, with a cover-letter outlining the survey and a link to access it and participants in the interested-group accessed the questionnaire via website. Participants/materials, setting, methods The survey collected information on demographic characteristics and the participant’s attitudes towards anonymity of gamete donors. The questions were: (i) In the case of children conceived through ART, do you believe that revealing the method of conception may affect the relationship between children and their parents? (ii) Once the method of conception is revealed, do you believe that the child has the right to know the gamete donor? (iii) If yes, when? Main results and the role of chance Most of the participants answered that the relationship between children and parents wouldn’t be affected by the child’s knowledge of the origin of their conception, regardless of the group (83.6% vs 82.7%, for ART-group and interested-group, respectively, p = 0.868). Most participants in the ART-group answered that the sperm donor identity shouldn’t be revealed to the child, while only half of the interested-group stated the same (65.4% vs 50.8%, p = 0.044). The same result was observed when participants were asked if the oocyte donor should be identifiable (64.8% vs 50.8%, p = 0.050). When asked when the donor’s identity should be revealed to the child, no significant differences were noted in the responses among the groups (p = 0.868). Most of the participants who believe that the child has the right of learning the donor’s identity, stated that “the donor’s identity should be revealed if the child questions its biological origin” (67.2% vs 67.5%, for ART-group and interested-group, respectively). “Since birth” was the second most common response, (21.0% vs 19.7%, for ART-group and interested-group, respectively), while “when the child turns 18 years-old” (9.2% vs 11.2%, for ART-group and interested-group, respectively), and “sometime during teenage years” (2.5% vs 2.4%, for ART-group and interested-group, respectively) were less common answers. Limitations, reasons for caution Lack of adequate opportunities to conduct face to face interview and lack of knowledge of the real state of the website participants, concerning infertility or being involved in ART. The retrospective nature of the study and the small sample size may also be reasons for caution, Wider implications of the findings: It has been discussed that, whether or not children or parents are harmed by knowing their biological origins, donor offspring have the right to know. However, when facing the situation, couples undergoing ART would argue that in case of gamete donation, there are reasons for not telling the child. Trial registration number Not applicable

Author(s):  
Brian Mayer

The fight for information on the use, storage, and release of toxic substances in and from workplaces has been often referred to as the struggle for the right to know. The frustration of occupational safety-and-health activists in trying to obtain information on product names and potential risks closely mirrors that uphill struggle to access information from the state and industry faced by environmental activists. Given the similarities between the two situations, collaboration on the right to know produced a formidable alliance between the two movements—especially in New Jersey, where the dense population and the close proximity of industry to that population produced a powerful blend of anti-toxics and pro-union activism that redefined the relationship between blues and greens. This blue-green coalition, the New Jersey Work Environment Council, has existed since the 1980s and has continuously led the fight for safer workplaces and a cleaner environment by building bridges between labor groups and environmental activists.


2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 65-85
Author(s):  
Tutik Nurul Janah

The purpose of consumer protection rules is to improve protection against consumers by avoiding the negative effects. Halal certification requirements on food products are also a country protection effort against consumers. Consumers have the right to know the content of food and beverages they will consume. During this time, halal certification is synonymous with Muslim community needs. However, it is not only Muslims who have religious rules regarding food. For example, Christians and Hindus also have rules regarding food.  Indonesia as a multicultural-multireligious country, should attention to this diversity. If the certification of halal products only targets the needs of Muslims only, then how with non-Muslim consumer protection efforts related to their right to know the content of food, cosmetics and medicines are not contradictory Their religious. This research is a research library with a normative juridical approach. This research aims to give readers an understanding of the principles related to halal certification, especially on food products. The research is also important to provide an understanding of the relationship between halal certification and transparency of food product composition with the fulfillment of Muslim and non-Muslim consumer rights.


2019 ◽  
Vol 63 (2) ◽  
pp. 173-188 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bibia Pavard

In 1920 in France, a law was passed prohibiting abortion, the sale of contraceptives and ‘anti-conception propaganda’. While contraception was legalised in 1967 and abortion in 1975, ‘anti-natalist propaganda’ remained forbidden. This article takes seriously the aim of the French state to prevent the circulation of information for demographic reasons. Drawing from government archives, social movement archives and media coverage, the article focuses on the way the propaganda ban contributed to shaping the public debate on contraception as well as lastingly impacting the ability of the state to communicate on the subject. It first shows how birth control activists challenged the legal interdiction against communicating about contraception (1956–67) without questioning the natalist obligation. It then shows how, after 1968, communication on contraception became a power struggle carried out by various actors (sexologists and feminist and leftist activists) and how the dissemination of information about contraception was thought of as a way to challenge moral and social values. Finally, the article describes the change of state communication policies in the mid-1970s, leading to the first national campaign on contraception launched in 1981, which defined information as a task that women should take on.


2015 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 417-443 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lorena Solis

As reproduction by surrogacy increases, the problems arising from surrogacy contracts also increase. Countries around the world are being asked to solve never-before-seen legal problems arising from surrogacy agreements. When trying to solve the newly arisen problems, the rights of the child born from the surrogacy contract tend to be overlooked. Enacted laws try to solve the enforceability of the contract and protect the rights of the parties involved— such as, who are the legal parents of the child if both sides of the agreement wish to keep the child. However, few of these laws address a situation where the opposite is true, a situation in which neither side wants to keep the child. In these situations, the primary focus should be the rights of the child, not the rights of the people involved in the contract. The law should be up to date and ready to protect the well-being of the child—a person who never asked to be born. Specifically, rights such as the citizenship of the child, the right to financial support, the right to inherit, and the right to identity should be protected. The Comment discusses how prepared U.S. and Texas law is to handle problems arising from a surrogacy contract in which neither side wants to keep the child. In this case, a child with intended American parents should have the right to be a U.S. citizen, the right to receive financial support from a party involved in the contract, the right to inherit, and the right to know his or her identity. These problems may not be currently present, but with the increase of surrogacy use, it surely could be an issue in the future.


2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 470-487
Author(s):  
Oyakemeagbegha Musah

The people’s right to know is a cardinal feature of democratic governance. In the judiciary, the right to know presupposes an open justice system where judges are expected to adjudicate without concealments. As authentic information purveyors in society, the press and the judiciary need collaboration to achieve openness in justice administration and satisfaction of the people’s right to know.Consequently, this paper explores the relationship between Nigerian judges and journalists vis a vis Nigeria’s Chief Judge’s recent directive to the bench to apply “contempt proceedings” in members’ interactions with “wanting” journalists, and the people’s right to know. The paper assessed judges’ professed preconditions for journalists’ presence in court and practical experiences of journalists in Nigerian courts. It identifies a depreciation of values in justice administration behind this morally repulsive relationship between the bench and the press and calls for urgent redress. Keywords: Journalism practice, Prejudice, Contempt of court, Justice administration, Judiciary


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document