{"title":"Beyond secrecy and openness: telling a relational story about children’s best interests in donor-conceived families","authors":"Deborah Dempsey, Petra Nordqvist, Fiona Kelly","doi":"10.1057/s41292-021-00225-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Over the past two decades, there has been increasing demand for openness in policy and practice relating to donor-conceived families. With the benefits of openness now widely discussed, and often legally mandated, it is timely to explore the challenges families face in enacting openness when donor assisted conception is still a complex legal and social issue. Our premise is that the difficulties associated with enacting openness should be subject to at least as much scrutiny as the secrecy of past practices. To make our case, we draw on qualitative, socio-legal and sociological research with same-sex, sole parent and heterosexual donor-conceived families in the UK and Australia. We argue that exhortations to openness about donor conception ignore important relational considerations of families if they rely on a moral discourse that being open is the right thing to do, devoid of any context about how, when and by whom this is achieved. Demands for openness need to take into account the situated care relationships of family members, the timing of and manner in which information is imparted, and the fact that this information can fundamentally disrupt or transform the family lives of those to whom it is revealed.</p>","PeriodicalId":46976,"journal":{"name":"Biosocieties","volume":"23 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2021-05-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Biosocieties","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1057/s41292-021-00225-9","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, BIOMEDICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Over the past two decades, there has been increasing demand for openness in policy and practice relating to donor-conceived families. With the benefits of openness now widely discussed, and often legally mandated, it is timely to explore the challenges families face in enacting openness when donor assisted conception is still a complex legal and social issue. Our premise is that the difficulties associated with enacting openness should be subject to at least as much scrutiny as the secrecy of past practices. To make our case, we draw on qualitative, socio-legal and sociological research with same-sex, sole parent and heterosexual donor-conceived families in the UK and Australia. We argue that exhortations to openness about donor conception ignore important relational considerations of families if they rely on a moral discourse that being open is the right thing to do, devoid of any context about how, when and by whom this is achieved. Demands for openness need to take into account the situated care relationships of family members, the timing of and manner in which information is imparted, and the fact that this information can fundamentally disrupt or transform the family lives of those to whom it is revealed.
期刊介绍:
BioSocieties is committed to the scholarly exploration of the crucial social, ethical and policy implications of developments in the life sciences and biomedicine. These developments are increasing our ability to control our own biology; enabling us to create novel life forms; changing our ideas of ‘normality’ and ‘abnormality’; transforming our understanding of personal identity, family relations, ancestry and ‘race’; altering our social and personal expectations and responsibilities; reshaping global economic opportunities and inequalities; creating new global security challenges; and generating new social, ethical, legal and regulatory dilemmas. To address these dilemmas requires us to break out from narrow disciplinary boundaries within the social sciences and humanities, and between these disciplines and the natural sciences, and to develop new ways of thinking about the relations between biology and sociality and between the life sciences and society.
BioSocieties provides a crucial forum where the most rigorous social research and critical analysis of these issues can intersect with the work of leading scientists, social researchers, clinicians, regulators and other stakeholders. BioSocieties defines the key intellectual issues at the science-society interface, and offers pathways to the resolution of the critical local, national and global socio-political challenges that arise from scientific and biomedical advances.
As the first journal of its kind, BioSocieties publishes scholarship across the social science disciplines, and represents a lively and balanced array of perspectives on controversial issues. In its inaugural year BioSocieties demonstrated the constructive potential of interdisciplinary dialogue and debate across the social and natural sciences. We are becoming the journal of choice not only for social scientists, but also for life scientists interested in the larger social, ethical and policy implications of their work. The journal is international in scope, spanning research and developments in all corners of the globe.
BioSocieties is published quarterly, with occasional themed issues that highlight some of the critical questions and problematics of modern biotechnologies. Articles, response pieces, review essays, and self-standing editorial pieces by social and life scientists form a regular part of the journal.