Walker A, Gregson S, McLaughlin E
Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, John Radcliffe Hospital, Headington, Oxford, UK.
Hum Reprod. 1987 Nov;2(8):745-50. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.humrep.a136625.
In a multi-centred study, a total of 799 patients, donors and health-care professionals concerned with artificial insemination with donor semen (AID) responded to a questionnaire regarding their attitudes towards current provision of AID services and proposed legislation. There was little support for any fundamental change in the way in which AID is practised, at least in those centres. The anonymous status of the donor met with universal agreement. Although there was some support for the communication of non-identifying details to the recipient couple, where they wanted them, there was no support for any legislation which might give the AID child a right of access to details of the donor. The greatest divergence of opinion was over the question of who should have access to AID treatment and whether or not screening procedures should be applied to prospective parents. Most respondents felt that the closed and confidential relationship between the clinic and the other parties involved should not automatically be extended to general practitioners or any national bodies. In respect of specific recommendations of the Warnock Committee, there was support for changes which might legitimize or assist the present system, but not for any which might be restrictive.
在一项多中心研究中，共有799名与供精人工授精（AID）相关的患者、捐赠者及医护人员对一份关于他们对当前AID服务提供方式的态度及拟议立法的问卷作出了回应。至少在那些中心，对于AID实施方式的任何根本性改变几乎没有得到支持。捐赠者的匿名身份得到了普遍认同。虽然对于在接受者夫妇有需求时向他们传达非识别性细节存在一些支持意见，但对于任何可能赋予AID儿童获取捐赠者详细信息权利的立法则没有支持。意见分歧最大的问题在于谁应有权接受AID治疗以及是否应对准父母进行筛查程序。大多数受访者认为，诊所与其他相关方之间封闭且保密的关系不应自动扩展至全科医生或任何国家机构。关于沃诺克委员会的具体建议，对于那些可能使现行制度合法化或提供帮助的变革存在支持，但对于任何可能具有限制性的变革则没有支持。
