Türk insanının oosit ve sperm bağışı hakkındaki görüşleri

Yıl 2019, Cilt: 44 Sayı: 1, 118 - 126, 31.03.2019

Derya Kaya Şenol , Sema Dereli Yılmaz , Meltem Demirgöz Bal , Nezihe Kızılkaya Beji , Seval Çalışkan Bulent Urman

https://doi.org/10.17826/cumj.438226

Cited By: 6

Öz

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı, Türk halkının oosit / sperm bağışı hakkındaki görüşlerini belirlemektir.

Gereç ve Yöntem: Tanımlayıcı kesitsel tipteki bu çalışma bir üniversite hastanesinin kadın hastalıkları ve doğum polikliniğine, kadınlar ve eşlerine veri toplama formu uygulanarak yürütüldü. Veri toplama formu katılımcıların demografik özelliklerine ve oosit/sperm bağışı hakkındaki düşüncelerine ilişkin 35 sorudan oluşmaktadır. Örnekleme çalışmaya katılmayı kabul eden 323'ü kadın, 105'i erkek toplam 428 kişi dahil edildi. 

Bulgular: Kadınların %64.3’ü, erkeklerin %71.4’ü infertile çiftlerde bağışlanmış oosit/sperm kullanımını uygun bulmadığını belirtti. Katılımcıların %63.0’ü, oositler/sperm bağışçılarının ve bağışı kabul edenlerin danışmanlık alması gerektiğini söyledi. Uygun bulan kişilerin %21.5’i akraba (örneğin kızkardeşi) ve arkadaş tarafından yapılan oosit/sperm bağışını uygun bulurken, %31.8'i yabancılardan almayı uygun bulmaktadır. İlkokul mezunlarının %88.7’si, üniversite ve üzeri düzeyde mezunların %73.4'ü, çalışanların %76.7'si, gelirleri giderlerinden daha düşük olanların%86.2'si ve yaşayan çocuğu olanların %77,1'i eşlerinde çocuk sahibi olmayı engelleyen bir problem varlığında bağışlanan oosit/sperm yoluyla çocuk sahibi olmayı kabul etmeyeceklerini belirttiler. 

Sonuç: Katılımcıların yarıdan fazlası, infertilitede bağışlanmış oosit/sperm yoluyla çocuk sahibi olmasını uygun bulmadığını beyan etmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

oosit, sperm, donasyon, gamet donasyonu

Views of Turkish people on oocyte and sperm donation

Öz

Purpose: The aim of the study is to determine the views of the Turkish people on oocyte/sperm donation. 

Materials and Methods: Following informed consent, a questionnaire was given to women and their spouses who presented to obstetrics and gynecology outpatient clinics of a university hospital. The data collection form consists of 35 questions about the demographics of the participants and their thoughts about oocyte / sperm donation. A total of 428 women, including 323 women and 105 men, agreed to participate in the sampling study.

Results Sixty-four-point three percent of the women and 71.4% of males found use of donated oocytes/sperms in infertile couples unacceptable. Sixty-three-point one percent of the participants said that both couples receiving, and those donating oocytes/sperms should get counseling. Twenty-one point-five percent of the participants approved of infertile couples’ receiving oocytes/sperms donated by their relatives (e.g. sister) and friends and 31,8% agreed about getting them from strangers. Eighty-eight-point seven percent of the primary school graduates, 73.4% of the university graduates and postgraduates, 76.7% of the employed participants, 86.2% of the participants with an income lower than their expenses and 85.1% of the participants with live children reported to unaccept donated sperms if their spouses had a problem preventing them from having a child. 

Conclusion: More than half of the participants declared that it was not appropriate to have children through infertile-donated oocyte/sperm.

Anahtar Kelimeler

oocyt, sperm, donation, gamet donation

Kaynakça

• 1- Adams J, Light R. Scientific consensus, the law, and same sex parenting outcomes. Soc Sci Res 2015; 53: 300–310.
• 2- Sabatello M. Regulating gamete donation in the U.S.: ethical, legal and social implications. Laws 2015; 4(3): 352–376.
• 3- Lampic C, Svanberg AS, Sydsjö G. Attitudes towards gamete donation among IVF doctors in the Nordic countries—are they in line with national legislation? J Assist Reprod Genet 2009; 26: 231–238.
• 4- Lampic C, Sunnerud S, Skoog Svanberg A. Nurses promote openness regarding the genetic origins after gamete Donation. Acta Peadiatr 2007; (96): 1500–1504.
• 5- Lampiao F. What do male students at the College of Medicine of the University of Malawi say about semen donation? TAF Prev Med Bull 2013; 12(1): 75-78.
• 6- Culley L, Hudson N, Rapport F. Assisted conception and South Asian communities in the UK: Public perceptions of the use of donor gametes in infertility treatment. Hum Fertil (Camb) 2013; 16(1): 48–53. 7- Karabacak O, Günaydin G. Oocyte donation and the factors affecting success. Turkiye Klinikleri J Surg Med Sci 2007; 3(13): 72-76.
• 8- Chamsi-Pasha H, Albar MA. Assisted reproductive technology: Islamic Sunni perspective, Hum Fertil (Camb) 2015; 18 (2): 107-112.
• 9- Inhorn MC, Patrizio P, Serour G. Third party reproductive assistance around the Mediterranean: comparing Sunni Egypt, Catholic Italy and multisectarian Lebanon. Reprod Biomed Online. 2010; 21(7):848-853.
• 10- Serour, G.I. Islamic perspectives in human reproduction . Reprod Biomed Online 2008; 17: 34-38.
• 11- Aramesh K. Iran ’ s experience with surrogate motherhood: an Islamic view and ethical concerns. J Med Ethics 2009; 35(5):320-322 .
• 12- Abbasi-Shavazi MJ, Inhorn MC, Razeghi-Nasrabad HB, Toloo G. The “Iranian ART Revolution ”:Infertility, Assisted Reproductive Technology, and Third-Party Donation in the Islamic Republic of Iran. Journal of Middle East Womens Studies 2008; 4: 1-28.
• 13- Assisted Reproductive Treatment Applications and Assisted Reproductive Treatment Centers About regulations. Official Newspaper of Turkish Republic with the issue 29135 and dated 30 September 2014. http://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/Metin.Aspx?MevzuatKod.
• 14- Isikoglu M. Senol Y, Berkkanoglu M, Ozgur K, Donmez L, Stones-Abbasi A. Public opinion regarding oocyte donation in Turkey: first data from a secular population among the Islamic World. Hum Reprod 2006; 21(1): 318–323.
• 15- Baykal B, Korkmaz C, Ceyhan ST, Goktolga U, Baser I. Opinions of infertile Turkish women on gamete donation and gestational surrogacy. Fertil Steril 2008; 89(4): 817-822.
• 16- Halvaei I, Khalili MA, Ghasemi-Esmailabad S, Nabi A, Shamsi F. Zoroastrians support oocyte and embryo donation program for infertile couples. J Reprod Infertil 2014; 15(4): 222-228.
• 17- Shufaro Y and Schenker JG. The risks and outcome of pregnancy in an advanced maternal age in oocyte donation cycles. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2014; 27(16): 1703-1709.
• 18- Akyuz A, Sever N, Karasahin E, Guvenc G, Cek S, A. survey on oocyte donation: Turkish fertile and infertile women’s opinions. Int J Fertil Steril 2014; 8(3): 289-298.
• 19- Human Fertilisation & Embryology Authority, Re-Register as an identifiable donor, http://www.hfea.gov.uk/1973.html (accessed Aug. 6, 2016).
• 20- Denton J, Monach J, Pacey A. Infertility and assisted reproduction: counseling and psychosocial aspects. Hum Fertil (Camb) 2013; 16(1): 1.
• 21- Cohen G, Coan T, Ottey M, Boyd C. Sperm donor anonymity and compensation: an experiment with American sperm donors. J Law Biosci 2016; 23(3): 468-488.
• 22- Wong KA. Donor conception and “passing”, or; why Australian parents of donor-conceived children want donors who look like them. J Bioeth Inq 2017; 14(1): 77-86.
• 23- Daniels CR, Heidt-Forsythe E. Gendered eugenics and the problematic of free market reproductive technologies: Sperm and egg donation in the United States. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 2012; 37(3): 719–747.
• 24- Inhorn MC, Birenbaum-Carmeli D. Assisted reproductive technologies and culture change. Annu Rev Anthropol 2008; 37(1): 177–196.
• 25- Payne JG. Reproduction in transition: Cross-border egg donation, biodesirability and new reproductive subjectivities on the European fertility market. Gender, Place & Culture 2015; 22(1): 107–122.
• 26- Svanberg AS, Lampic C, Bergh T, Lundkvist O. Public opinion regarding oocyte donation in Sweden. Hum Reprod 2003; 18(5): 1107-1114.
• 27- Genuis SJ, Chang WC, Genuis SK. Public attitudes in Edmonton toward assisted reproductive technology. CMAJ 1993; 149(2): 153-161.
• 28- Afshar L, Bagherı A. Embryo donation in Iran: an ethical review. Dev World Bioeth 2013; 13(3): 119-124.
• 29- Wise S, Kovacs G. Secrecy, family relationships and the welfare of children born with the assistance of donor sperm: Developments in research, law and practice. Families, policy and the law: Selected essays on contemporary issues for Australia, 2014 May. https://aifs.gov.au/publications/families-policy-and-law/9-secrecyfamily-relationships-and welfare-children-born.Accessed May 3, 2016.
• 30- Purewal S, Vanden Akker O. 'I feel like they were mine and I should be looking after them': an exploration of non-patient women’s attitudes towards oocyte donation. J Psychosom Obstet Gynaecol 2009; 30(4): 215-222.
• 31- Ahmadi A, Bamdad S. Assisted reproductive technologies and the Iranian community attitude towards infertility. Hum Fertil (Camb) 2017; 20(3): 204-211.
• 32- Stobel-Richter Y, Goldschmidt S, Brahler E, Weidner K, Beutel M. Egg donation, surrogate mothering, and cloning: Attitudes of men and women in Germany based on a representative survey. Fertil Steril 2009; 92: 124–130.
• 33- Hudson N, Culley L, Frances R, Johnson M, Bharadwaj A. “Public” perceptions of gamete donation: A research review. Public Underst Sci 2009; 18: 61–77.