References
- 1. ESHRE Task Force on Ethics and Law III Gamete and embryo donation - Human Reproduction, 2002; 17(5): 1407-1408.
- 2. McWhinnie A. Gamete donation and anonymity, Hum Reprod, 2001; 16(5): 807-817.
- 3. Hill M (2002) Sperm donors “want to keep anonymity”. BBC News. Available from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/2329675.stm
- 4. Brett S, Sacranie RR, Thomas GE, and Rajkhowa R. Can we improve recruitment of oocyte donors with loss of donor anonymity? A hospital-based survey. Hum Fertil (Camb) 2008; 11: 101-107.
- 5. Janssens P. M. W, Simons A. H. M, van Kooij R. J, Blokzijl E, and Dunselman G. A. J. A new Dutch Law regulating provision of identifying information of donors to offspring: background, content and impact. Hum. Reprod, 2006; 21(4): 852-856.
- 6. Lycett E, Daniels K, Curson R, and Golombok S. School-aged children of donor insemination: a study of parents’ disclosure patterns. Hum. Reprod., 2005; 20(3): 810-819.
- 7. Krastev R, Mitev V. Law and bioethics of the assisted reproduction in the European Union, Sofia, ed. Iztok-Zapad, 2014, p.29.
- 8. Daniels K, and Lalos O. The Swedish Insemination Act and the availability of donors. Hum. Reprod, 1995; 12: 1871-1874.
- 9. Fichou K. (AFP) (Oct 8, 2011) Sperm donors father huge “families” in US, Canada Available at www.google.com/.../afp/.../ALeqM5jT8W3P_gpVoAZi1l6ShG5zH1...
- 10. Pennings, G., The “double track” policy for donor anonymity. Hum. Reprod., 1997; 12; 2839-2844.
- 11. Frith, L, Blyth, E., Farrand, A., UK gamete donors’ reflections on the removal of anonymity: implications for recruitement. Hum. Reprod, 2007; 22(6): 1675-1680.
- 12. Skoog Svanberg, A., Lampic, C., Bergh, T., Lundkvist, Ö. Public opinion regarding oocyte donation in Sweden. Human Reproduction 2003a; 18(5): 1107-1114.
- 13. Skoog Svanberg, A., Lampic, C., Bergh, T., Lundkvist, Ö. Characterization of potential oocyte donors in Sweden. Human Reproduction 2003b; 18(10):2210-2215.
- 14. Isaksson, S., Skoog Svanberg, A., Sydsjö, G., Thurin-Kjellberg, A., Karlström, P. O., Solensten, N.-G., Lampic, C. Two decades after legislation on identifiable donors in Sweden: are recipient couples ready to be open about using gamete donation? Human Reproduction 2011; 26(.4): 853-860.
- 15. Minai, J., Suzuki, K., Takeda, Y., Hoshi, K., Yamagata, Z. There are gender differences in attitudes towards surrogacy when information on this technique is provided. European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology 2007; 132: 193-199.
- 16. http://www.ipsos.com/interviews
- 17. http://www.doctissimo.fr/html/dossiers/genetique/14922-enquete-la-bioethique-et-vous
- 18. De la Fuente Fonnest I., Finn Søndergaard, Gert Fonnest and Agnette Vedsted-Jacobsen, Attitudes among health care professionals on the ethics of assisted reproductive technologies and legal abortion. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand, 2000; 79: 49-53.
- 19. Papaharitou S, Nakopoulou E., Moraitou M., Hatzimouratidis K. and Hatzichristou D. Reproductive health and midwives: Does occupational status differentiate their attitudes on assisted reproduction technologies from those of the general population? Human Reproduction 2007; 22(7): 2033-2039.
- 20. YouGov Assisted Reproduction Survey On behalf of Progress Educational Trust Summ ary report, www.YouGov.com novembre 2006.
- 21. Brewaeys, A., De Bruyn, J. K., Louwe, L. A., Helmerhorst, F. M. Anonymous or identity-registered sperm donors? A study of Dutch recipients’ choices. Hum. Reprod, 2005; 20(3): 820-824.