Comparison of methodologies to detect hemoglobinopathy carriers in a multi‐ethnic sperm donor population

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lauren J. Isley ◽  
Aleisha K. Chamberlain ◽  
Pamela Callum ◽  
Jaime Shamonki
Keyword(s):  
Sperm Donor ◽  
Donor Population

scholarly journals CYTOMEGALOVIRUS IMMUNOPOSITIVITY DOES NOT CORRELATE WITH ABNORMAL SPERM PARAMETERS WITHIN A LARGE SPERM DONOR POPULATION

2020 ◽  
Vol 114 (3) ◽  
pp. e268
Author(s):  
Ariella Farzan Nikou ◽  
Joanne Won ◽  
Stephanie Pan ◽  
Hyewon Choi ◽  
Joseph A. Lee ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Sperm Parameters ◽  
Sperm Donor ◽  
Abnormal Sperm ◽  
Donor Population

Judgments of Moral Responsibility in Tissue Donation Cases

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
James R. Beebe
Keyword(s):  
Moral Responsibility ◽  
Significant Role ◽  
Primary Factor ◽  
Tissue Donation ◽  
Potential Donor ◽  
Sperm Donor ◽  
Perceived Burden ◽  
Related Individuals ◽  
Unique Ability

If a person requires a tissue donation in order to survive, many philosophers argue that whatever moral responsibility a biological relative may have to donate to the person in need will be grounded at least partially, if not entirely, in the biological relations the potential donor bears to the recipient. Such views tend to ignore the role played by a potential donor’s unique ability to help the person in need and the perceived burden of the donation type in underwriting such judgments. If, for example, a sperm donor is judged to have a significant moral responsibility to donate tissue to a child conceived with his sperm, we argue that such judgments will largely be grounded in the presumed unique ability of the sperm donor to help the child due to the compatibility of his tissues with those of the recipient. In this paper, we report the results of two main studies and three supplementary studies designed to investigate the comparative roles that biological relatedness, unique ability to help, and donation burden play in generating judgments of moral responsibility in tissue donation cases. We found that the primary factor driving individuals’ judgments about the moral responsibility of a potential donor to donate tissue to someone in need was the degree to which a donor was in a unique ability to help. We observed no significant role for biological relatedness as such. Biologically related individuals were deemed to have a significant moral responsibility to donate tissue only when they are one of a small number of people who have a relatively unique capacity to help. We also found that people are less inclined to think individuals have a moral responsibility to donate tissue when the donation is more costly to make. We bring these results into dialogue with contemporary disputes concerning the ethics of tissue donation.

Judgments of moral responsibility in tissue donation cases

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
James R. Beebe
Keyword(s):  
Moral Responsibility ◽  
Tissue Donation ◽  
Potential Donor ◽  
Sperm Donor ◽  
Biological Relationship ◽  
Related Individuals ◽  
Unique Ability

If a person requires an organ or tissue donation to survive, many philosophers argue that whatever moral responsibility a biological relative may have to donate to the person in need will be grounded at least partially, if not entirely, in biological relations the potential donor bears to the recipient. We contend that such views ignore the role that a potential donor’s unique ability to help the person in need plays in underwriting such judgments. If, for example, a sperm donor is judged to have a significant moral responsibility to donate tissue to a child conceived with his sperm, we think this will not be due to the fact that the donor stands in a close biological relationship to the recipient. Rather, we think such judgments will largely be grounded in the presumed unique ability of the sperm donor to help the child due to the compatibility of his tissues and organs with those of the recipient. In this paper, we report the results of two studies designed to investigate the comparative roles that biological relatedness and unique ability play in generating judgments of moral responsibility in tissue donation cases. We found that biologically related individuals are deemed to have a significant moral responsibility to donate tissue only when they are one of a small number of people who have the capacity to help.

The 7008 Builders

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rosanna Hertz ◽  
Margaret K. Nelson
Keyword(s):  
Pecking Order ◽  
Sperm Donor ◽  
New Members ◽  
Original Narrative ◽  
Families With Children ◽  
Family Membership ◽  
Traditional Families

This chapter introduces the members of the 7008er network at the occasion of a significant gathering, when seven families with children born from the same sperm donor come together at a hotel in the Midwest. From the beginning, the children in this network seek to construct themselves as a family. Love, trust, and harmony serve as guideposts in the unscripted land of donor-linked families. They also use structures they know from traditional families, such as a sibling pecking order. As the group expands to incorporate new members, the original narrative of family membership fails to describe the reality of competing allegiances among teenagers. Instead of remaining a coherent group, the members of this network break into a number of separate factions. Born between 1995 and 2001, the kids interviewed are between fifteen and nineteen years old.

Michael’s Clan

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rosanna Hertz ◽  
Margaret K. Nelson
Keyword(s):  
Emotional Support ◽  
Relative Influence ◽  
Same Sex ◽  
Sperm Donor ◽  
Material Support ◽  
Same Sex Couples ◽  
Family Form ◽  
New Family ◽  
Nature And Nurture ◽  
Families Of Choice

The same-sex couples highlighted in this narrative are members of the “families of choice” cohorts that arose during the 1980s. Although they were establishing a new family form, the mothers in a two-mother family told their child that he had a sperm donor “father” whom he could meet when he turned eighteen. When the meeting occurred, the two formed a limited father-child bond. The donor provides emotional support, but he does not offer any material support. When other offspring from the same donor contact him, the donor introduced the donor siblings to each other. The members of this network reconsider ideas about the relative influence of nature and nurture. Yet ideas about chosen families remain central to the manner in which the members relate to one another. Born between 1986 and 1990, the kids in this network were between twenty-four and twenty-eight years old at the time of the interviews.

Unprecedented Relationships

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rosanna Hertz ◽  
Margaret K. Nelson
Keyword(s):  
Social Norms ◽  
Research Methods ◽  
Family Size ◽  
Age Groups ◽  
Internal Dynamics ◽  
Sperm Donor

This chapter introduces the concept of networks of strangers linked by reliance on the same sperm donor. It draws on participants’ use of the language of genes and the language of choice to explain how these networks develop. Because the relationships within these networks are unprecedented, the members have to decide for themselves naming conventions and social norms. The introduction suggests the importance of these relationships at a time when family size is shrinking. It includes a discussion of research methods, describing how the authors located respondents and the characteristics of respondents (212 parents and 154 donor-conceived children). It also explains how the authors chose to feature particular networks that reflected different eras, different age groups of children, and different internal dynamics.

Feline blood donation adverse reactions: classification and description of acute and delayed reactions in a donor population

2021 ◽  
pp. 1098612X2110202
Author(s):  
Tiago AM Abreu ◽  
Andreia ST Oliveira ◽  
Rui RF Ferreira ◽  
Sandrina MV Correia ◽  
Mafalda SSQ Morais ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Blood Donors ◽  
Adverse Reactions ◽  
Blood Donation ◽  
Animal Blood ◽  
Veterinary Practitioner ◽  
Donor Programme ◽  
Donor Population ◽  
Delayed Reactions ◽  
Low Incidence ◽  
High Level

Objectives This article aims to analyse the safety of feline blood donation by describing the frequency and nature of any adverse reactions and their causes, as well as propose measures to decrease the incidence of adverse reactions. Methods In this prospective study, any blood donor adverse reactions detected by the clinical staff during and immediately after donation were recorded. The owners of the cats were also surveyed by a veterinary practitioner or veterinary nurse 5 days after donation, using a predefined questionnaire to assess for any clinical or behavioural changes. Data were collected between January 2019 and March 2020 from blood donors enrolled in an animal blood bank programme. Results Of 3690 blood donations from 1792 feline donors assessed, post-donation reactions were reported in 1.14% (n = 42): 0.22% (n = 8) were acute reactions, which included weakness, pallor, tachypnoea and open-mouth breathing; and 0.92% (n = 34) were delayed post-donation reactions, with 0.16% involving cutaneous (haematomas and skin rashes, n = 6), 0.68% involving behavioural (n = 25) and 0.08% involving digestive (emesis and inappetence, n = 3) signs. Conclusions and relevance The low incidence of post-donation reactions in this study is encouraging, suggesting that a well-established protocol and competent staff can help to ensure a high level of safety in a feline donor programme and, in turn, increase the confidence of cat owners.

Hepatitis-Associated Markers in the American Red Cross Volunteer Blood Donor Population

Vox Sanguinis ◽  
1980 ◽  
Vol 39 (2) ◽  
pp. 73-78 ◽  
Author(s):  
N. Nath ◽  
C. T. Fang ◽  
H. Berberian ◽  
M. J. Bastiaans ◽  
R. Y. Dodd ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Blood Donor ◽  
Red Cross ◽  
American Red Cross ◽  
Volunteer Blood Donor ◽  
Donor Population
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document