Papers by Jennifer Speirs
Trusting and its Tribulations, 2016
The Steering Group has explored the counselling requirements of people who seek information about... more The Steering Group has explored the counselling requirements of people who seek information about their origins from the HFEA Register and sets out the evidence in this report. It also addresses the needs of others who may be affected by a personOs wish to make such enquires as well as the implications for donors, their families and those who were conceived prior to the establishment of the Register in 1991.
This briefing was written by Jennifer Speirs and edited by Kirsten Thomlinson and Jeni Harden. It... more This briefing was written by Jennifer Speirs and edited by Kirsten Thomlinson and Jeni Harden. It is based on a PhD in social anthropology at the University of Edinburgh and funded by grants from the ESRC. Dissemination of the research findings has been funded by an ESRC Postdoctoral Fellowship in Social Anthropology held at the Centre for Research on Families and Relationships (The University of Edinburgh) and also supported by Innogen, the ESRC Centre for Social and Economic Research on Innovation in Genomics.
Opinion in European countries has been divided over whether people conceived with donated gametes... more Opinion in European countries has been divided over whether people conceived with donated gametes (semen, eggs and embryos) should be able to obtain identifying information about their genetic (donor) parents. Despite the increasing number of countries whose laws now permit access to such information, many in the infertility treatment business remain opposed to or anxious about this change of legislation. Based on ethnographic fieldwork on social aspects of anonymous semen donation, including unstructured interviews with doctors in the UK who had donated between the late 1960s and early 1980s and with doctors currently in clinical practice in several European countries, I show in this article how although anonymous semen donation is used to circumvent childlessness caused by male infertility, it is also a wayfor doctors to wield influence in the domain of kinship and family formation.
Bionews, 2010
This comment considers the proposals to disband the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority ... more This comment considers the proposals to disband the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) under the auspices of the Government's review of Arm's-Length Bodies in the NHS. The comment highlights some of the difficulties this might raise in relation to the Register of ...
Nordisk sosialt arbeid
... An early international review of more than 100 government, and government-initiated, reports ... more ... An early international review of more than 100 government, and government-initiated, reports on the regulation of assisted conception (Knoppers and LeBris 1991) recorded a lack of consensus regarding the maintenance of donor ... London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers. ...
This comment considers the proposals to disband the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority ... more This comment considers the proposals to disband the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) under the auspices of the Government's review of Arm's-Length Bodies in the NHS. The comment highlights some of the difficulties this might raise in relation to the Register of ...
"Tato publikace vznikla v rámci řešení Výzkumného záměru FHS UK "Antropologie komunikac... more "Tato publikace vznikla v rámci řešení Výzkumného záměru FHS UK "Antropologie komunikace a lidské adaptace" (MSM 0021620843)"--Tiráž
"Tato publikace vznikla v rámci řešení Výzkumného záměru FHS UK "Antropologie komunikac... more "Tato publikace vznikla v rámci řešení Výzkumného záměru FHS UK "Antropologie komunikace a lidské adaptace" (MSM 0021620843)"--Tiráž
What happens when you no longer trust the public document which you had always assumed to underpi... more What happens when you no longer trust the public document which you had always assumed to underpin your identity? How does this distrust enter into relationships between donor-conceived people and their parents and to be reflected in a lack of trust between professional stakeholders caught up in the impact of the distress of donor-conceived people after revelation of the ‘falsehood’?
Birth certificates in all four nations of the UK (England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales) are a record of a social event (the birth of a child) but are widely assumed to provide identifying information about a person’s genetic mother and father. Traditionally the social father of a donor conceived child would have his name on the certificate in order to legitimise the child, to avoid the stigma of male infertility on the family, and to leave no trace of the personhood of the donor. Adult donor-conceived activists are now lobbying for gamete donors’ names to be recorded on birth certificates so that donor offspring will be able to know that they were donor-conceived even if their parents have refused to tell them, and to learn their genealogical heritage despite opposition to this from many infertility clinicians, and so that they will be in the same position as adopted people who all have the right to access their original birth certificate. By exploring the activists’ claims, stories and strategies, I show how the legacy of the ‘false’ birth certificate has contributed to the destabilisation of pre-existing family and professional relationships, and especially of the trust characteristic of kin creation and maintenance, the very things which the ‘false’ birth certificate was supposed to promote.
Human reproduction and genetic ethics, 2003
Archives of Disease in Childhood, 1999
The use of donated human semen in the UK was developed by medical practitioners as a means of cir... more The use of donated human semen in the UK was developed by medical practitioners as a means of circumventing male infertility and helping childless women to achieve a pregnancy. Uncertainty about the legal status of donor-conceived children and moral concerns about the possible effects on the marital relationship of the recipients worked to maintain donor insemination (DI) as a largely hidden practice in which the donors remained anonymous to the recipients and unrevealed to any resulting donor offspring. Donors were not expected or encouraged to take any interest in what became of their donations even after the practice became subject to regulation by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990. This thesis is based on a set of unstructured interviews with medical practitioners and other health professionals currently or formerly working in clinics providing DI services in the UK, and with men who donated semen between the 1960s and early 1980s mostly when they were medical students. Participant observation was carried out at conferences and other meetings of organisations and individuals with professional or personal involvement in donor-assisted conception, and a survey was made of infertility clinics’ policies concerning the use of semen from donors known personally to recipients. Discussions with donors revealed ambivalent and mixed feelings about their involvement in providing semen, often for payment, and about their lack of information regarding the outcome of their donations. The idea of possible contact with donor offspring is influenced for these semen donors by their perceptions and experiences of what it means to be a parent and by the significance attributed to physical resemblances between genetically related people. In this situation of ambiguity and uncertain obligation, there is no existing script for managing possible new kinds of kinship relation. The historical tension in DI services between opportunity and risk because of possible defects or disease in donated semen is now echoed in professional uncertainties about whether to allow semen donation where the donor and recipient are known personally to each other. I show that for some people, including donors, this brings the practice into a kinship frame, whilst for others it confuses family boundaries because of the possible fantasies between donor and recipient, and the involvement of the genetic father with the donor-conceived child’s upbringing. Finally I show that disagreements in the UK over whether to remove the legal provisions for anonymity turn on whether it is necessary to protect donors from emotional and financial claims from their donor offspring, and on perceptions about what constitutes a parent.
The article reports qualitative research findings which explored the meanings of kinship and gene... more The article reports qualitative research findings which explored the meanings of kinship and genetic knowledge of fifteen pre-1990 semen donors in the UK. This is presented in the context of public and academic debates about the regulation of access to genetic information, genetic information as intellectual property and kinship knowledge, and the multiple ownership of genetic information. Semen donors in the UK traditionally were expected to take no interest in what became of their donations and those who did were considered to be unsuitable as donors. However, the present research reveals that men who donated in the past hold varied attitudes, including curiosity about how donor offspring have fared and what they look like. Whilst some donors would welcome direct contact with donor offspring, there are practical and emotional obstacles to satisfying their curiosity. Donors’ views reflect the varied understandings in the UK about the implications of genetic relatedness and the time and energy required to maintain and sustain relationships.
Keywords: Semen donors, anonymity, relatedness, UK DonorLink
Opinion in European countries has been divided over whether people conceived with
donated gamete... more Opinion in European countries has been divided over whether people conceived with
donated gametes (semen, eggs and embryos) should be able to obtain identifying information
about their genetic (donor) parents. Despite the increasing number of countries whose laws
now permit access to such information, many in the infertility treatment business remain opposed
to or anxious about this change of legislation. Based on ethnographic fi eldwork on social
aspects of anonymous semen donation, including unstructured interviews with doctors in
the UK who had donated between the late 1960s and early 1980s and with doctors currently in
clinical practice in several European countries, I show in this article how although anonymous
semen donation is used to circumvent childlessness caused by male infertility, it is also a way
for doctors to wield infl uence in the domain of kinship and family formation.
Keywords: semen donation, donor anonymity, kinship, family formation
Journal of Medical Ethics, 2000
Uploads
Papers by Jennifer Speirs
Birth certificates in all four nations of the UK (England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales) are a record of a social event (the birth of a child) but are widely assumed to provide identifying information about a person’s genetic mother and father. Traditionally the social father of a donor conceived child would have his name on the certificate in order to legitimise the child, to avoid the stigma of male infertility on the family, and to leave no trace of the personhood of the donor. Adult donor-conceived activists are now lobbying for gamete donors’ names to be recorded on birth certificates so that donor offspring will be able to know that they were donor-conceived even if their parents have refused to tell them, and to learn their genealogical heritage despite opposition to this from many infertility clinicians, and so that they will be in the same position as adopted people who all have the right to access their original birth certificate. By exploring the activists’ claims, stories and strategies, I show how the legacy of the ‘false’ birth certificate has contributed to the destabilisation of pre-existing family and professional relationships, and especially of the trust characteristic of kin creation and maintenance, the very things which the ‘false’ birth certificate was supposed to promote.
Keywords: Semen donors, anonymity, relatedness, UK DonorLink
donated gametes (semen, eggs and embryos) should be able to obtain identifying information
about their genetic (donor) parents. Despite the increasing number of countries whose laws
now permit access to such information, many in the infertility treatment business remain opposed
to or anxious about this change of legislation. Based on ethnographic fi eldwork on social
aspects of anonymous semen donation, including unstructured interviews with doctors in
the UK who had donated between the late 1960s and early 1980s and with doctors currently in
clinical practice in several European countries, I show in this article how although anonymous
semen donation is used to circumvent childlessness caused by male infertility, it is also a way
for doctors to wield infl uence in the domain of kinship and family formation.
Keywords: semen donation, donor anonymity, kinship, family formation
Birth certificates in all four nations of the UK (England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales) are a record of a social event (the birth of a child) but are widely assumed to provide identifying information about a person’s genetic mother and father. Traditionally the social father of a donor conceived child would have his name on the certificate in order to legitimise the child, to avoid the stigma of male infertility on the family, and to leave no trace of the personhood of the donor. Adult donor-conceived activists are now lobbying for gamete donors’ names to be recorded on birth certificates so that donor offspring will be able to know that they were donor-conceived even if their parents have refused to tell them, and to learn their genealogical heritage despite opposition to this from many infertility clinicians, and so that they will be in the same position as adopted people who all have the right to access their original birth certificate. By exploring the activists’ claims, stories and strategies, I show how the legacy of the ‘false’ birth certificate has contributed to the destabilisation of pre-existing family and professional relationships, and especially of the trust characteristic of kin creation and maintenance, the very things which the ‘false’ birth certificate was supposed to promote.
Keywords: Semen donors, anonymity, relatedness, UK DonorLink
donated gametes (semen, eggs and embryos) should be able to obtain identifying information
about their genetic (donor) parents. Despite the increasing number of countries whose laws
now permit access to such information, many in the infertility treatment business remain opposed
to or anxious about this change of legislation. Based on ethnographic fi eldwork on social
aspects of anonymous semen donation, including unstructured interviews with doctors in
the UK who had donated between the late 1960s and early 1980s and with doctors currently in
clinical practice in several European countries, I show in this article how although anonymous
semen donation is used to circumvent childlessness caused by male infertility, it is also a way
for doctors to wield infl uence in the domain of kinship and family formation.
Keywords: semen donation, donor anonymity, kinship, family formation
Birth certificates in all four nations of the UK (England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales) are a record of a social event (the birth of a child) but are widely assumed to provide identifying information about a person’s genetic mother and father. Traditionally the social father of a donor conceived child would have his name on the certificate in order to legitimise the child, to avoid the stigma of male infertility on the family, and to leave no trace of the personhood of the donor. Adult donor-conceived activists are now lobbying for gamete donors’ names to be recorded on birth certificates so that donor offspring will be able to know that they were donor-conceived even if their parents have refused to tell them, and to learn their genealogical heritage despite opposition to this from many infertility clinicians, and so that they will be in the same position as adopted people who all have the right to access their original birth certificate. By exploring the activists’ claims, stories and strategies, I show how the legacy of the ‘false’ birth certificate has contributed to the destabilisation of pre-existing family and professional relationships, and especially of the trust characteristic of kin creation and maintenance, the very things which the ‘false’ birth certificate was supposed to promote.