超越保密与公开:讲述捐赠受孕家庭中儿童最大利益的关系故事

IF 1.3 4区 医学 Q4 SOCIAL SCIENCES, BIOMEDICAL Biosocieties Pub Date : 2021-05-11 DOI:10.1057/s41292-021-00225-9
Deborah Dempsey, Petra Nordqvist, Fiona Kelly
{"title":"超越保密与公开:讲述捐赠受孕家庭中儿童最大利益的关系故事","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":"{\"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}","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

摘要

在过去的二十年里,人们越来越多地要求与捐献受孕家庭有关的政策和实践公开化。随着公开性的益处被广泛讨论,并经常被法律强制执行,现在是时候探讨一下,当捐献者辅助受孕仍然是一个复杂的法律和社会问题时,家庭在实行公开性时所面临的挑战。我们的前提是,与实行公开性相关的困难至少应与过去的保密做法一样受到严格审查。为了说明我们的观点,我们对英国和澳大利亚的同性、单亲和异性捐精受孕家庭进行了定性、社会法律和社会学研究。我们认为,关于开放捐卵受孕的劝告如果只依赖于公开是正确做法的道德论述,而不考虑如何、何时以及由谁来实现这一目标,就会忽视家庭的重要关系因素。对公开性的要求需要考虑到家庭成员之间的照顾关系、传递信息的时间和方式,以及这些信息可能从根本上扰乱或改变信息接收者的家庭生活这一事实。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Beyond secrecy and openness: telling a relational story about children’s best interests in donor-conceived families

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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Biosocieties
Biosocieties SOCIAL SCIENCES, BIOMEDICAL-
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
6.20%
发文量
23
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.
期刊最新文献
‘Our biology is listening’: biomarkers as molecular vestiges of early life and the production of positive childhood experiences in behavioral epigenetics Anticipating and suspending: the chronopolitics of cryopreservation From brain “scar” to “bat shit crazy”: negotiating the madness of sexual violence discourse What is the cure for absolute infertility? Biomedicalisation and routinisation of surrogacy and uterus transplantation in Nordic medical journals The politics of suspension suspended: the curious case of a cryopreserved cell product
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1