Jørgensen H K, Hartling O J
The Danish Council of Ethics, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Med Law. 2007 Mar;26(1):137-43.
Since Sweden abolished anonymity in connection with sperm donation in 1985, a number of other countries have followed suit. A legal provision still exists in Denmark to the effect that the donor must be anonymous. Arguments given in a Danish context against retaining the present scheme involving anonymous sperm donation will be discussed. The biggest problem with sperm donation seems to be non-disclosure. Current and important arguments in favour ofabolishing anonymity are that it sends out a clear signal that non-disclosure is unacceptable and that, in principle, all citizens should have access to the information available about themselves. However, the arguments can be criticised both from theoretical (legal) and several practical (medical) points of view. A substantive alternative to abolishing anonymity might be to inform parents about avoiding non-disclosure--and to design information material for the children, to support the parents.
自1985年瑞典废除精子捐赠的匿名制以来，其他一些国家也纷纷效仿。丹麦仍有一项法律规定，即捐赠者必须保持匿名。本文将讨论在丹麦背景下反对保留现行匿名精子捐赠方案的论据。精子捐赠最大的问题似乎是信息不公开。支持废除匿名制的当前重要论据是，它发出了一个明确信号，即信息不公开是不可接受的，而且原则上所有公民都应能够获取有关自己的可用信息。然而，这些论据可以从理论（法律）和几个实际（医学）角度受到批评。废除匿名制的一个实质性替代方案可能是告知父母避免信息不公开，并为孩子们设计信息材料，以支持父母。
