Information access and donated gametes: how much do we know about who wants to know?
This paper reviews the methodological adequacy of the psychosocial literature on information access when donated gametes and embryos are used. In all, 10 major flaws were identified: (i) sample sizes were too small, (ii) sample selection procedures were ad hoc, (iii) there were no comparisons between current and past donors and recipients, (iv) there were no comparisons between current donors and recipients in the one study, (v) studies relied on just one partner from a recipient couple, (vi) donor motivation was assessed crudely, (vii) studies failed to clarify what was identifying and non-identifying information, (viii) links between researchers and clinics may have influenced respondents, (ix) response measurement was crude, and (x) data analysis was limited and basic. It is argued that these flaws prohibit any firm conclusions to be drawn either way about whether donors and recipients should disclose information, whether they should have access to information, or even whether donors and recipients want to have access to information about each other or to have information about themselves disclosed to the other party.
Broderick
P
P
Psychology Division, Murdoch University, WA, Australia.
Walker
I
I
D001290:Attitude; D004992:Ethics, Medical; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D007255:Information Services; D007883:Legislation, Medical; D008297:Male; D018587:Oocyte Donation; D011247:Pregnancy; D013094:Spermatozoa; D011795:Surveys and Questionnaires; D014019:Tissue Donors; D014342:Truth Disclosure