Donor Conception Disclosure: Directive or Non-Directive Counselling?
It is widely agreed among health professionals that couples using donor insemination should be offered counselling on the topic of donor conception disclosure. However, it is clear from the literature that there has long been a lack of agreement about which counselling approach should be used in this case: a directive or a non-directive approach. In this paper we investigate which approach is ethically justifiable by balancing the two underlying principles of autonomy (non-directive approach) and beneficence (directive approach). To overrule one principle in favour of another, six conditions should be fulfilled. We analyse the arguments in favour of the beneficence principle, and consequently, a directive approach. This analysis shows that two conditions are not met; the principle of autonomy should not be overridden. Therefore, at this moment, a directive counselling approach on donor conception disclosure cannot be ethically justified.
Bioethics Institute Ghent (BIG), Department of Philosophy and Moral Science, Ghent University, Blandijnberg 2, B-9000, Gent, Belgium. inez.raes@gmail.com.
Inez
I
Raes
Bioethics Institute Ghent (BIG), Department of Philosophy and Moral Science, Ghent University, Blandijnberg 2, B-9000, Gent, Belgium.
An
A
Ravelingien
Bioethics Institute Ghent (BIG), Department of Philosophy and Moral Science, Ghent University, Blandijnberg 2, B-9000, Gent, Belgium.
Guido
G
Pennings
D026686:Beneficence; D003376:Counseling / Q000941:ethics* / Q000379:methods; D030881:Disclosure; D000072234:Donor Conception; D004992:Ethics, Medical; D005191:Family Characteristics; D006801:Humans; D007315:Insemination, Artificial; D026684:Personal Autonomy; D018570:Risk Assessment; D014019:Tissue Donors
Counselling; Disclosure; Donor conception; Ethics; Secrecy