Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Donogene Insemination

Gegenwärtiger Stand der Behandlung in der BRD

  • In der Diskussion
  • Published:
Gynäkologische Endokrinologie Aims and scope

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Abb. 1.

Literatur

  1. Arbeitskreis für donogene Insemination e.V. Jena/Essen (2000) S 1–23

  2. Barratt C, Englert Y, Gottlieb C, Jouannet P (1998) Gamete donation guidelines. The Corsendonk consensus document for the European Union. Hum Reprod 13:500–501

    Google Scholar 

  3. British Andrology Society (1993) British Andrology Society guidelines for the screening of semen donors for donor insemination. Hum Reprod 8:1521–1523

    Google Scholar 

  4. Cook R, Golombok S, Bish A, Murray C (1995) Disclosure of donor insemination: parental attitudes. Am J Orthopsychiatry 65:549–559

    Google Scholar 

  5. Daniels K (1998) The semen providers. In: Daniels K, Haimes E (eds) Donor insemination: International Social Science Perspectives. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge U.K.

  6. de Boer A, Oosterwijk JC, Rigters Aris CA (1995) Determination of a maximum number of artificial inseminations by donor children per sperm donor. Fertil Steril 63:419–421

    Google Scholar 

  7. Englert Y (1998) Gamete Donation: current ethics in the European Union. Hum Reprod [Suppl 2] 13:105–134

    Google Scholar 

  8. European Association of Tissue Banks. (1997). Standards for Sperm Banking. By Council for reproductive cells. Rom Leipzig Berlin

  9. Ferrara I, Balet T, Grudzinskas JG (2002) Intrauterine insemination with frozen donor sperm. Pregnancy outcome in relation to age and ovarian stimulation regime. Hum Reprod 17:2320–2324

    Google Scholar 

  10. Frith L (2001) Gamete donation and anonymity. Hum Reprod 16:818–824

    Google Scholar 

  11. Göbel P, Lübke F (1987) Katamnestische Untersuchungen an 96 Paaren mit heterologer Insemination. Geburtsh Frauenheilkd 47:636–640

  12. Golombok S, Brewaeys A. Cook R et al. (1996) The European study of assisted reproduction families: family functioning and child development. Hum Reprod 11:2324–2331

    Google Scholar 

  13. Golombok S, Brewaeys A, Giavazzi MT et al. (2002). The European study of assisted reproduction families: the transition to adolescence. Hum Reprod 17:830–840

    Google Scholar 

  14. Gottlieb C, Lalos O, Lindblad F (2000) Disclosure of donor insemination to the child: the impact of Swedish legislation on couples' attitudes. Hum Reprod 15:2052–2056

    Google Scholar 

  15. Günther E, von Versen R (1995) Richtlinien zur Auswahl von Spermaspendern. Akt Dermatol 22:36–37

    Google Scholar 

  16. Günther E (1999) Persönliche Mitteilung

  17. Günther E (2000) Das Kind des Anderen. Frauenheilkunde plus:136–137

  18. Katzorke T, Propping D, Tauber PF, Ludwig H (1980) Artifizielle Insemination mit Spendersamen (AID): 140 Schwangerschaften bei 290 Ehepaaren. Frauenarzt 21:405–412

    Google Scholar 

  19. Katzorke T, Propping D, Tauber PF (1981) Results of Donor Artificial Insemination (AID) in 415 couples. Int J Fertil 26:260–266

    Google Scholar 

  20. Katzorke T (1989) Diskussion in der Bundesrepublik: sozialer kontra genetischer Vater. Sexualmedizin 18:56–58

    Google Scholar 

  21. Katzorke T (1995) Heterologe Insemination. In: Tinneberg HR, Ottmar C (Hrsg) Moderne Fortpflanzungsmedizin. Georg Thieme, Stuttgart New York, S 141–147

  22. Katzorke T (2001) Keimzellspende—medizinische, soziale und juristische Aspekte aus ärztlicher Sicht. In: Fortpflanzungsmedizin in Deutschland, Band 132, Schriftenreihe des Bundesministeriums für Gesundheit, Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft, Baden-Baden, S 122–133

  23. Katzorke T, Kolodziej FB (2001) Perspektiven eines geänderten Fortpflanzungsmedizingesetzes. Reproduktionsmedizin 17:325–333

    Google Scholar 

  24. Klock SC, Jacob MC, Maier D (1994) A prospective study of donor insemination recipients: secrecy, privacy and disclosure. Fertil Steril 62:477–484

    Google Scholar 

  25. Kovacs GT, Mushin D, Kane H, Baker HW (1993) A controlled study of the psychosocial development of children conceived following insemination with donor semen. Hum Reprod 8:788–790

    Google Scholar 

  26. Krause W (1999) Hat die heterologe Insemination heute noch Bedeutung und Berechtigung? Reproduktionsmedizin 15:165–172

    Google Scholar 

  27. Lalos A, Daniels K, Gottlieb C, Lalos O (2003) Recruitment and motivation of semen providers in Sweden. Hum Reprod 18:212–216

    Google Scholar 

  28. Le Lannou D, Thepot F, Jouannet P (1998) Multicentre approaches to donor insemination in the French CECOS Federation: nationwide evaluation, donor matching, screening for genetic diseases and consanguinity. Hum Reprod [Suppl 2] 13:35–49

    Google Scholar 

  29. Liu SC, Weaver SM, Robinson J et al. (1995). A survey of semen donor attitudes. Hum Reprod 10:234–238

    Google Scholar 

  30. Mahlstedt PP, Greenfeld DA (1989) Assisted reproductive technology with donor gametes: the need for patient preparation. Fertil Steril 52:908–914

    Google Scholar 

  31. Nielsen AF, Pedersen B, Lauritsen JG (1995) Psychosocial aspects of donor insemination. Attitudes and opinions of Danish and Swedish donor insemination patients to psychosocial information being supplied to offspring and relatives. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 74:45–50

    Google Scholar 

  32. Nieschlag E, Wagenfeld A, von Schönfeldt V, Schlatt S (2001) Keimzellspende—Möglichkeiten und Entwicklungen. In: Fortpflanzungsmedizin in Deutschland, Band 132, Schriftenreihe des Bundesministeriums für Gesundheit, Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft, Baden-Baden, S 109–120

  33. Pennings G (1997) The "double track" policy for donor anonymity. Hum Reprod 12:2839–2844

    Google Scholar 

  34. Purdie A, Peek JC, Irwin R, Ellis J et al. (1992). Identifiable semen donors attitudes of donors and recipient couples. N Z Med J 105:27–28

    Google Scholar 

  35. Ratzel R (2002) Rechtslage bei heterologer Insemination. Reproduktionsmedizin 18:37

    Google Scholar 

  36. Schilling G (1999). Kinder nach donogener (heterologer) Insemination in der Einschätzung ihrer Eltern. Z Psychosom Med 45:354–371

    Google Scholar 

  37. Schover LR, Rothmann SA, Collins RL (1992) The personality and motivation of semen donors: a comparison with oocyte donors. Hum Reprod 7:575–579

    Google Scholar 

  38. Schwarz D, Mayaux MJ (1982) Female Fecundity as a function of age. N Engl J Med 306:404

    Google Scholar 

  39. Seikowski K, Glander HJ (1990) Entwicklung von Partnerschaft und Kind nach erfolgreicher therapeutischer donogener Insemination (TDI). Zentralbl Gynäkol 112:811–816

    Google Scholar 

  40. Seikowski K, Glander HJ (1996) Psychosoziale Aspekte der heterologen Insemination. Frauenarzt 37:117–131

    Google Scholar 

  41. Shenfield F, Steele SJ (1997) What are the effects of anonymity and secrecy on the welfare of the child in gamete donation? Hum Reprod 12:392–395

    Google Scholar 

  42. Snowden R, Mitchell GD, Snowden EM (1985) Artefizielle Reproduktion. Enke, Stuttgart

  43. Tauber PF (1983) Insemination aus ärztlicher Sicht. MMW 125:1086–1090

    Google Scholar 

  44. The American Society for Reproductive Medicine (1998) Guidelines for therapeutic donor insemination: sperm. Fertil Steril [Suppl 3] 70:1S–4S

  45. Thepot F, Mayaux MJ, Czyglick F et al. (1996) Incidence of birth defects after artificial insemination with frozen donor spermatozoa: a collaborative study of the French CECOS Federation on 11.535 pregnancies. Hum Reprod 11:2319–2323

    Google Scholar 

  46. van Berkel D, van der Veen L, Kimmel I, te Velde E (1999) Differences in the attitudes of couples whose children were conceived through artificial insemination by donor in 1980 and 1996. Fertil Steril17:226–231

    Google Scholar 

  47. Weller J, Sobelawsky I, Guzy J (1989) Wie entwickeln sich Partnerschaft und Kinder? Langzeitbeobachtungen nach heterologer Insemination. Sexualmedizin 18:84–90

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Danksagung

Für die Unterstützung bei der Ausarbeitung des juristischen Teiles bin ich Frau Rechtsanwältin Dr. Helga Müller, Frankfurt, zu Dank verpflichtet.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Zentrum für Reproduktionsmedizin und Endokrinologie, Gemeinschaftspraxis, Essen

    T. Katzorke

  2. Zentrum für Reproduktionsmedizin und Endokrinologie, Gemeinschaftspraxis Prof. Dr. med. Th. Katzorke/Dr. med. D. Propping/Dr. med. S. Wohlers, Kettwiger Straße 2–10, 45127 , Essen

    T. Katzorke

Authors
  1. T. Katzorke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to T. Katzorke.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Katzorke, T. Donogene Insemination. Gynäkologische Endokrinologie 1, 85–94 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10304-003-0021-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10304-003-0021-x

Search

Navigation