O-224 “There might be two hundreds of us” - a qualitative study on the experience of meeting large numbers of same donor offspring
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Study question What are the experiences of donor-conceived people who discover large numbers (over 20) of same donor offspring, from a personal and relational point of view? Summary answer Participants reported feeling shocked by the number of donor-siblings. It led them to redefine their identity and their relations with their donor-siblings and the donor. What is known already The experience of discovering and meeting donor-siblings has been recently well documented. Yet, very little is known about how the size of the donor sibling group impacts this experience. A few studies have addressed the need to limit the number of offspring per donor. There is no consensus on what this limit should be and the regulations in that regard vary across countries. Although fears of incestuous relationships are still prevalent, policy discussions tend to focus mainly on the negative psychosocial impacts of discovering a large donor sibling group, however, no empirical evidence has allowed to support this concern. Study design, size, duration We conducted an exploratory study using a qualitative research design. Data collection was conducted in the Fall 2021 and Winter 2022 using a purposive sampling method. No geographical limitations were set for the data collection. Participants/materials, setting, methods The inclusion criteria for the recruitment of participants were: 1) donor-conceived adults aged 18 or over; 2) French or English-speaking; 3) with 20 or more donor-siblings. Data collection was carried out through online in-depth interviews. In total, 22 people took part in the study (16 women, 7 men and 1 non-binary person). They were aged between 21 and 76. Eight came from the US, 7 from the UK, 5 from Canada, and 2 from Germany. Main results and the role of chance The discovery of a large donor-sibling group provoked feelings of shock and surprise, combined with curiosity. Indeed, many participants mentioned that they had been disconcerted by this discovery, which often coincided with the disclosure of their mode of conception. Although the connections formed with their donor-siblings were generally described as enriching, their number was seen as an infringement of their singularity and individuality. The idea of having been “mass conceived” generated a certain unease, sometimes even a feeling of repulsion. Furthermore, the size of the group was often perceived either as a hindrance to the formation of meaningful bonds with donor-siblings, or as a burden. While some regretted not being able to know all their donor-siblings and mourned those impossible ties, others felt overwhelmed by the sheer number of exchanges, obligations, and unpredictable events their number entailed. Finally, a large donor-sibling group was seen by some as a potential obstacle to their relationship with the donor. For some, the fact that the donor donated his sperm on such a large scale questioned his integrity and motivations and depicted him in an unfavourable light. For others, being so numerous competing for his attention minimised their chances of establishing contact with him. Limitations, reasons for caution Despite the innovative nature of the study, the size of the sample and the variability of the experiences do not allow for definitive conclusions to be drawn and limit the understanding that can be gained from it. Further research should examine for example the context of online sperm donation. Wider implications of the findings With the democratization of direct-to-consumer DNA testing, more and more contacts between donor-siblings will occur. It is therefore important to examine how this phenomenon unfolds more specifically in the context of large donor-sibling groups. This will inform policy discussions on the need to limit the number of offspring per donor. Trial registration number Not applicable
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».