Attitudes toward oocyte donation among medical and nursing students and couples who have recently become parents: A Swedish study

Abstract

Aim:  The aim of the present study was to investigate attitudes toward oocyte donation and receiving oocytes in relation to gender, demographic variables and other factors that could influence these attitudes, such as anonymity of the donor and financial compensation.

Methods:  The study population consisted of 595 subjects divided into two groups; one group contained men and women who had recently become parents and the other group consisted of medical and nursing students. All subjects were asked to answer a study-specific questionnaire.

Results:  The proportions of respondents positive toward oocyte donation were 32% in the student group and 37% in the parental group. Of the respondents in the student group, 87% were positive toward donating organs other than oocytes compared with 78% in the parental group (P < 0.05). In the parental group, the respondents that were positive toward organ donation in general were also more positive toward donating/partner donating and receiving/partner receiving oocytes (P < 0.001 and P < 0.01, respectively). The majority of the respondents stated that their attitudes were not affected by anonymity of the donation, financial compensation or knowing the outcome of the donation.

Conclusion:  Respondents’ attitudes were unaffected by anonymity of the donation, financial compensation and knowing the outcome of the donation. However, the data suggest that respondents who were positive toward organ donation in general were also more positive toward donating/partner donating and receiving/partner receiving oocytes. (Reprod Med Biol 2008; 7: 161–168)

REFERENCES 1 Khamsi F, Endman M, Lacanna IC, Wong J. Some psychological aspects of oocyte donation from known donors on altruistic basis. Fertil Steril 1997; 68: 323–327. 2 Brewaeys A, Golombok S, Naaktgeboren N, De Bruyn JK, Van Hall EV. Donor insemination. Dutch parents’ opinions about confidentiality and donor anonymity and the emotional adjustment of their children. Hum Reprod 1997; 12: 1591–1597. 3 Westlander G, Janson PO, Tagnfors U, Bergh C. Attitudes of different groups of women in Sweden to oocyte donation and oocyte research. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1998; 77: 317–321. 4 Fonnest I, Sodergaard F, Fonnest G, Vedstedt-Jacobsen A. Attitudes among health care professionals on the ethics of assisted reproductive technologies and legal abortion. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2000; 79: 49–53. 5 Greenfeld DA. Changing attitudes towards third-party reproductive techniques. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 2002; 14: 289–292. 6 National Board of Health and Welfare. Available from URL: http://www.sos.se/sosfs/2002_13/2002 7 Sauer MV, Rodi IA, Scrooc M, Bustillo M, Buster JE. Survey of attitudes regarding the use of siblings for gamete donation. Fertil Steril 1988; 49: 721–722. 8 Greenfeld DA, Mazure CM, Olive DL, Keefe DL. Similarities and differences between anonymous and direct candidates for oocyte donation. J Assist Reprod Genet 1995; 12: 118–122. 9 McWhinnie A. Gamete donation and anonymity: should offspring from gametes continue to be denied knowledge of their origins and antecedents? Hum Reprod 2001; 16: 807–817. 10 Shenfield F, Steele SJ. What are the effects of anonymity and secrecy on the welfare of the child in gamete donation? Hum Reprod 1997; 12: 392–395. 11 Söderström-Anttila V, Foudila T, Hovatta O. Oocyte donation in infertility treatment: a review. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2001; 80: 191–199. 12 Sauer MV, Ary BR, Paulson RJ. The demographic characterization of women participating in oocyte donation: a review of 300 consecutively performed cycles. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 1994; 45: 147–151. 13 Söderström-Anttila V. Follow-up study of Finnish volunteer oocyte donors concerning their attitudes to oocyte donation. Hum Reprod 1995; 10: 3073–3076. 14 Sauer MV. Indecent proposal: $5000 is not ‘reasonable compensation’ for oocyte donors Fertil Steril 1999; 71: 7–10. 15 Golombok S, Murray C, Brinsden P, Abdalla H. Social versus biological parenting: family functioning the socio emotional development of children conceived by egg or sperm donation. J Child Psychol Psychiat 1999; 40: 519–527. 16 Turner AJ, Coyle A. What does it mean to be a donor offspring? The identity experience of adults conceived by donor insemination and the implications for counseling and therapy. Hum Reprod 2000; 15: 2041–2051. 17 Golombok S, Brewaeys A, Giavazzi Mt Guerra D, MacCuallum F, Rust J. The European study of assistant reproduction families: the transition to adolescence. Hum Reprod 2002; 17: 830–840. 18 SFS Svensk Författnigssamling 1984 Swedish Statute Book. Thomson Förlag, Stockholm. 19 Svanberg AS, Lampic C, Bergh T, Lundkvist O. Public opinion regarding oocyte donation in Sweden. Hum Reprod 2003; 18: 1107–1114. 20 Hansson FH. Klona Skapelses krona? Debatt som mental tillvänjning. Forskningsrådsnämnden: Källa 1997; 49: 80–83. (In Swedish.) 21 Burr J, Reynolds P. Thinking ethically about genetic inheritance: liberal rights, communitarianism and the right to privacy for parents of donor insemination children. J Med Ethics 2008; 34: 281–284. 22 Available from URL: http://www.vardguiden.se 23 Greenfield DA, Greenfield DG, Mazure CM, Keefe DL, Olive DL. Do attitudes toward disclosure in donor oocyte recipients predict the use of anonymous versus directed donation? Fertil Steril 1998; 70: 1009–1014. 24 Blom R. Statistics Sweden. [email protected] . SCB, Stockholm.