P-768 Families' experience of insemination fraud : a qualitative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Study question What is the experience of parents and their offspring when they discover they were victims of insemination fraud, i.e. a voluntary substitution of sperm samples? Summary answer Participants reported experiencing shock, sideration and disbelief, feelings of being betrayed by the medical institution, and concerns about the repercussions on family bonds. What is known already Despite growing concerns about third-party assisted human reproduction, several loopholes remain in the legislation governing sperm donation. For example, the lack of consistency across clinics in donation tracking and record-keeping procedures has led to cases of accidental or voluntary substitution of sperm donations. Such substitutions imply that the sperm of the donor selected by the parents or that of the father of the child is not the sperm used for conception. With the advent of DNA kits, more and more cases of substitution are being uncovered. However, this phenomenon has not received the scientific attention it deserves. Study design, size, duration This is an exploratory study using a qualitative methodology. Data collection was conducted in Canada in the winter of 2019 and spring of 2021 using a purposive sampling method. Participants/materials, setting, methods In total, 13 people made up our sample: seven parents (two fathers and five mothers) and six donor-conceived people conceived (four teenagers, aged between 13 and 16 years and two adults aged 38 and 39 years). Donor conception was used in the context of male infertility (N = 1), vasectomy (N = 3), sperm freezing after cancer (N = 1), and celibacy (N = 1). The data was collected using semi-structured individual interviews. Main results and the role of chance A thematic analysis shows that the experience varies according to one’s position in the insemination process (whether one uses it or is the product of it), to the nature of the substitution and to the suspicions one has (or not) prior to the discovery. However, all the participants described the announcement of the substitution as a shock that strongly undermines trust in the assisted reproduction industry. In cases where the father’s sperm was substituted, this leads to having to renounce biological paternity and the ideal of a child born to both parents. In cases where the chosen donor was substituted, this forces the parents and their offspring to give up (temporarily or permanently) the possibility of tracing the man who conceived the child and/or the donor siblings. The substitution generates then for the parents a feeling of worry about the medical and psychological repercussions for their child and, for the children, a feeling of incomplete identity. On the other hand, in cases where the doctor’s sperm was substituted for that of an unknown donor, the persons conceived by donation seemed to have a better reaction because it provided them with answers as to their origins. 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 about this phenomenon and limit the understanding that can be gained from it to this particular fraud, emanating from the same doctor. Wider implications of the findings With the democratization of DNA testing, this type of phenomenon could become more widespread. It is therefore important to document it to better understand its consequences on the disintegration of the filial or family bond, the possibility of redefining the biological family, and the redefinition of the original parental project. Trial registration number N/A
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".