Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A Comparison of Oocyte Donors' and Gestational Carriers/Surrogates' Attitudes Towards Third Party Reproduction

  • Published:
Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose : This study was designed to compare levels of satisfaction for ovum donors and gestational carriers/surrogates (GCS), investigate attitudes, and explore beliefs about the role genetics, gestation, and environment play in various characteristics.

Design : An east coast IVF center and two California-based agencies recruited donor and GCS candidates.

Methods : Participants received mailed questionnaires that included sections on demographics, attitudes, and beliefs.

Results : Both groups were highly satisfied with their participation. Donors were not willing to be GCS, and GCS were not willing to be donors. GCS thought about and disclosed their participation, felt children should be told about GCS, and desired future contact with the child(ren) more than did donors (p < 0.002). Donors did not indicate a preference about disclosure. Contact with recipients did not correlate with satisfaction.

Conclusion : Women who chose to donate eggs or to be GCS hold distinct and different beliefs about the role of gestation and genetics.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

REFERENCES

  1. Society for Assisted Reproductive Technologies, American Society for Reproductive Medicine, Annual Report1998: http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/drh/art.htm

  2. Braverman AM, Corson SL: Characteristics of participants in a gestational carrier program. J Asst Reprod Genet 1992;9: 353-357

    Google Scholar 

  3. Parker PJ: Motivation of surrogate mothers: Initial findings. Am J Psychiatry 1983;140:117 Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics, Vol. 19, No. 10, October 2002

    Google Scholar 

  4. Reame NE, Parker PJ: Surrogate pregnancy: Clinical features of forty-four cases. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1990;1;3:151-154

    Google Scholar 

  5. Greenfeld DA, Mazure CM, Olive DL, Keefe DL: Similarities and differences between anonymous and directed candidates for oocyte donation. J Asst Reprod Genet 1995;12:118-122

    Google Scholar 

  6. Schover LR, Collins RI, Quigley MM, Blankstein J, Kanoti G: Psychological follow-up of women evaluated as oocyte donors. Hum Reprod 1991;6:1487-1491

    Google Scholar 

  7. Schover LR, Reis J, Collins RL, Blankstein J, Kanoti G, Quigley MM: The psychological evaluation of oocyte donors. J Psychosom Obstet Gynecol 1990;11:299-309

    Google Scholar 

  8. Schover LR, Rothmann SA, Collins RL: The personality and motivation of semen donors:Acomparison with oocyte donors. Hum Reprod 1992;7:575-579

    Google Scholar 

  9. Lessor R, Balmaceda J, Cervantes N, Asch R, O'Connor N: An analysis of social and psychological characteristics of women volunteering to become oocyte donors. Fertil Steril 1993;59: 65-71

    Google Scholar 

  10. Klock SC, Braverman AM, Rausch DT: Predicting anonymous egg donor satisfaction: A preliminary study. JWomens Health 1998;7:229-237

    Google Scholar 

  11. Braverman AM: Surrogacy and gestational carrier programs: Psychological issues. In Infertility and Reproductive Medicine Clinics of North America, Vol. 4, DG Greenfeld (ed), Philadelphia, W.B. Saunders, 1993, pp 517-531

  12. Schover LR: Psychological aspects of oocyte donation. In Infertility and Reproductive Medicine Clinics of North America, Vol. 4, DG Greenfeld(ed), Philadelphia, W.B. Saunders, 1993, pp 4:517-531

    Google Scholar 

  13. Patrick M, Smith AL, Meyer WR, Bashford RA: Anonymous oocyte donation: A follow-up questionnaire. Fertil Steril 2001;75:1034-1036

    Google Scholar 

  14. Mahlstedt PP, Probasco KA: Sperm donors: Their attitudes toward providing medical and psychosocial information for recipient couples and donor offspring. Fert Steril 1991;56:747-753

    Google Scholar 

  15. Schover LR, Rothmann SA, Collins RL: The personality and motivation of semen donors:Acomparison with oocyte donors. Hum Reprod 1992;7:575-579

    Google Scholar 

  16. Daniels KR, Curson R, Lewis GM: Semen donor recruitment: Astudy of donors in two clinics. Hum Reprod 1996;11:746-751

    Google Scholar 

  17. Cook R, Golombok S: Asurvey of semen donation: Phase II- The view of the donors. Hum Reprod 1995;10:951-959

    Google Scholar 

  18. Emond M, Scheib JE: Why not donate sperm? A study of potential donors. Evol Hum Behav 1998;19:313-319

    Google Scholar 

  19. Lui SC, Weaver SM, Robinson J, Debono M, Nieland M, Killick SR, Hay DM: A survey of semen donor attitudes. Hum Reprod 1995;10:234-238

    Google Scholar 

  20. Kalfoglou AL, Gittelsohn J: A qualitative follow-up study of women’s experiences with oocyte donation. Hum Reprod 2000;15:798-805

    Google Scholar 

  21. Daniels KR: The social responsibility of gamete providers. J Community Appl Soc Psych 1998;8:261-271

    Google Scholar 

  22. Corson SL, Braverman AM: Why we believe there should be a gamete registry. Fertil Steril 1998;69:809-811

    Google Scholar 

  23. Sauer MV: Gamete registry? A Trojan horse from those seeking regulation. Fertil Steril 1998;69:812-813

    Google Scholar 

  24. Braverman AM, Corson SL: Factors related to preferences in gamete donor sources. Fertil Steril 1995;63:543-549

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Pennsylvania Reproductive Associates, Thomas Jefferson University, 815 Locust Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 19107

    Andrea Mechanick Braverman & Stephen L. Corson

Authors
  1. Andrea Mechanick Braverman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Stephen L. Corson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andrea Mechanick Braverman.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Braverman, A.M., Corson, S.L. A Comparison of Oocyte Donors' and Gestational Carriers/Surrogates' Attitudes Towards Third Party Reproduction. J Assist Reprod Genet 19, 462–469 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020306402235

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020306402235

Search

Navigation