Is blood really thicker than water? Assisted reproduction and its impact on our thinking about family

References

• Lalos A. Breaking bad news concerning infertility. Human Reproduction 1999; 14(3): 581–585.
   Google Scholar
• Daniels KR. Does assisted reproduction make an impact on the identity and self-image of infertile couples? Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics 1999; 16(2): 57–59.
   Google Scholar
• Mahlstedt P. Psychological issues of infertility and assisted reproductive technology. Urologic Clinics of North America 1994; 21(3): 557–566.
   Google Scholar
• Bailey K. Sociology and the new systems theory. Albany: State University of New York Press; 1994.
   Google Scholar
• Daniels KR. Toward a family-building approach to donor insemination. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology Canada 2002; 24(1): 17–21.
   Google Scholar
• Daniels KR, Thorn P. Sharing information with donor insemination offspring. Human Reproduction 2001; 16(9): 9–1792.
   Google Scholar
• Eichler M. The construction of technologically-mediated families. Journal of Comparative Family Studies 1996; 27(2): 2–281.
   Google Scholar
• Golombok S. New families, old values: considerations regarding the welfare of the child. Human Reproduction 1998; 13(9): 2324–2347.
   Google Scholar
• Shenfield F. Privacy versus disclosure in gamete donation: a clash of interest, of duties, or an exercise in responsibility? Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics 1997; 14(7): 7–371.
   Google Scholar
• Daniels KR. The controversy regarding privacy versus disclosure among patients using donor gametes in assisted reproductive technology. Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics 1997; 14(7): 373–375.
   Google Scholar
• Klock SC. The controversy surrounding privacy or disclosure among donor gamete recipients. Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics 1997; 14(7): 377–381.
   Google Scholar
• Weil E. Privacy and disclosure: the psychological impact on gamete donors and recipients in assisted reproduction. Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics 1997; 14(7): 7–369.
   Google Scholar
• Finkler K, Skrzynia C, Evans JP. The new genetics and its consequences for family, kinship, medicine and medical genetics. Social Science and Medicine 2003; 57(3): 3–403.
   Google Scholar
• Giddens A. Modernity and self-identity: self and society in the late modern age. Cambridge: Polity; 1991.
   Google Scholar
• Robertson JA. Assisted reproductive technology and the family. Hastings Law Journal 1996; 47: 911–933.
   Google Scholar
• Goffman E. Stigma: notes on the management of spoiled identity. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall; 1963.
   Google Scholar
• Thorn P, Daniels KR. A group work approach to familybuilding by donor insemination: empowering the marginalized. Human Fertility 2003; 6: 46–50.
   Google Scholar
• Leiblum SR, Aviv AL. Disclosure issues and decisions of couples who conceived via donor insemination. Journal of Psychosomatic Obstetrics and Gynecology 1997; 18: 292–300.
   Google Scholar
• Blyth E. Secrets and lies: barriers to the exchange of genetic origins information following donor assisted conception. Adoption and Fostering 1999; 23(1): 49–58.
   Google Scholar
• Daniels KR, Lewis GM, Gillett WR. Telling DI offspring about their conception: the nature of couples’ decision making. Social Science & Medicine 1995; 40(9): 1213–1220.
   Google Scholar
• Gillett WR, Daniels KR, Herbison GP. Feelings of couples who have had a child by donor insemination: the degree of congruence. Journal of Psychosomatic, Obstetrics and Gynecology 1996; 17: 135–142.
   Google Scholar
• Lycett E, Daniels KR, Curson R, Golombok S. Offspring created as a result of donor insemination: a study of family relationships, child adjustment, and disclosure. Fertility and Sterility 2004; 82(1): 172–179.
   Google Scholar
• Brewaeys A. Donor insemination, the impact on family and child development. Journal of Psychosomatic Obstetrics and Gynecology 1996; 17: 1–13.
   Google Scholar
• Daniels KR. Toward a family-building approach to donor insemination. J. Obstet Gynaecol Canada. 2002; 24(1): 17–21.
   Google Scholar
• Daniels KR. Building a family: with the assistance of donor insemination. Palmerston North, NZ: Dunmore Press; 2004.
   Google Scholar
• Finegold WJ. Artificial insemination. Springfield, Illinois: Charles C Thomas; 1964.
   Google Scholar
• Glezerman M. Two hundred and seventy cases of artificial donor insemination: management and results. Fertility and Sterility 1981; 35(2): 180–7.
   Google Scholar
• Baker HWG. Problems with the regulation of assisted reproductive technology: a clinician’s perspective. Journal of Law and Medicine 2002; 9(4): 457–469.
   Google Scholar
• Daniels KR, Curson R, Lewis GM. Semen donor recruitment: a study of donors in two clinics. Human Reproduction 1996; 11(4): 746–751.
   Google Scholar
• Daniels KR, Curson R, Lewis GM. Families formed as a result of semen donor insemination: the views of semen donors. Child and Family Social Work 1996; 1: 97–106.
   Google Scholar
• Daniels KR, Lewis GM, Curson R. Information sharing in semen donation: the views of donors. Social Science & Medicine 1997; 44(5): 673–680.
   Google Scholar
• New Zealand 2004 Human Assisted Technology Act. Wellington, New Zealand Government.
   Google Scholar
• Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Informing offspring of their conception by gamete donation. Fertility and Sterility 2004; 81(3): 527–531.
   Google Scholar