Exploring the ethical implications of the late discovery of adoptive and donor-insemination offspring status
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Some children adopted under the now discredited period of closed adoption were never told of their adoptive status until it was revealed to them in adulthood. Yet to date, this ‘late-discovery’ experience has received little research attention. Now a new generation of ‘late discoverers’ is emerging as a result of (heterosexual couple) donor insemination (DI) practices. This study of 25 late-discovery participants of either adoptive or (heterosexual couple) DI offspring status reveals ethical concerns particular to the lateness of discovery. Most of the participants were Australian, with the remainder from the UK, USA and Canada. All were asked to give an ‘open’ account of their experience, with four themes or suggestions provided on request. These accounts were added to those available in relevant publications. The analysis employed a hermeneutic phenomenological methodology and all accounts were analysed using an ethical perspective developed by Walker (2006 , 2007) . The main themes that emerged were: disrupted personal autonomy, betrayal of deep levels of trust and feelings of injustice and diminished self-worth. The lack of recognition of concerns particular to late discovery has resulted in late discoverers (i) feeling unable to regain a sense of personal control, (ii) significantly disrupted relationships with those closest to them and others, including community and institutions, and (iii) feelings of diminished value and self-worth.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".