title: Recruiting gamete donors: response to Craft and Thornhill.
abstract: This response challenges the notion that paying more money, in whatever form, will overcome the anxieties of gamete donors regarding the removal of anonymity. An overview of the literature on payment and donor recruitment indicates that this is a complex issue. That literature does provide 'pointers' to the types of persons who should be 'targeted' in an information sharing and non-payment system. The experience in Sweden, both in relation to donor recruitment and parents' information-sharing with their children, is clarified, as the evidence is not always presented accurately.
authors.affiliation: Department of Social Work, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand. Ken.Daniels@canterbury.ac.nz
authors.forename: Ken
authors.initials: K
authors.lastname: Daniels
mesh_terms: D030881:Disclosure / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D005249:Fees and Charges; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D018587:Oocyte Donation / Q000191:economics / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D013548:Sweden; D014019:Tissue Donors / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D009927:Tissue and Organ Procurement / Q000191:economics* / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence / Q000379:methods*; D006113:United Kingdom