“秘密”:人工生殖能从收养中学到什么?

E Haimes
{"title":"“秘密”:人工生殖能从收养中学到什么?","authors":"E Haimes","doi":"10.1093/lawfam/2.1.46","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Frequent comparisons are made between adoptive families and those families formed through artificial means of reproduction, particularly those involving sperm and egg donation. It is claimed that problems from the latter arising out of the extent of the child's knowledge of his/her parentage may be handled with reference to the solutions found within adoption to similar problems. This paper examines those claims and questions the initial premise. It argues that problems remain within British adoption on the issue of openness, at the level of legislation, administration and professional practice. It argues that problems remain because of an uneasiness which still persists about adoption as an institution. Moves to make the practice of adoption more open have, in effect, disguised but not eliminated the uneasiness. An attempt to extend those 'solutions' to artificial reproduction might (a) suggest similar ambivalence about those practices and (b) lead to claims which again disguise rather than solve those ambiguities. The paper concludes therefore that adoption might be a useful precedent for artificial reproduction but more in the way it poses questions which remain to be answered, than as a source of solutions for direct application.</p>","PeriodicalId":81546,"journal":{"name":"International journal of law and the family","volume":"2 ","pages":"46-61"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1988-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1093/lawfam/2.1.46","citationCount":"45","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"'Secrecy': what can artificial reproduction learn from adoption?\",\"authors\":\"E Haimes\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/lawfam/2.1.46\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Frequent comparisons are made between adoptive families and those families formed through artificial means of reproduction, particularly those involving sperm and egg donation. It is claimed that problems from the latter arising out of the extent of the child's knowledge of his/her parentage may be handled with reference to the solutions found within adoption to similar problems. This paper examines those claims and questions the initial premise. It argues that problems remain within British adoption on the issue of openness, at the level of legislation, administration and professional practice. It argues that problems remain because of an uneasiness which still persists about adoption as an institution. Moves to make the practice of adoption more open have, in effect, disguised but not eliminated the uneasiness. An attempt to extend those 'solutions' to artificial reproduction might (a) suggest similar ambivalence about those practices and (b) lead to claims which again disguise rather than solve those ambiguities. The paper concludes therefore that adoption might be a useful precedent for artificial reproduction but more in the way it poses questions which remain to be answered, than as a source of solutions for direct application.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":81546,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International journal of law and the family\",\"volume\":\"2 \",\"pages\":\"46-61\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1988-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1093/lawfam/2.1.46\",\"citationCount\":\"45\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International journal of law and the family\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/lawfam/2.1.46\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International journal of law and the family","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/lawfam/2.1.46","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 45

摘要

人们经常将收养家庭与通过人工生殖手段,特别是通过精子和卵子捐赠形成的家庭进行比较。据称,由于儿童对其父母身份的了解程度而引起的后者的问题,可以参照收养中对类似问题的解决办法加以处理。本文对这些说法进行了检验,并对最初的前提提出了质疑。它认为,在立法、行政和专业实践层面上,英国收养在开放性问题上仍然存在问题。它认为,问题仍然存在,因为人们对收养作为一种制度仍然感到不安。使收养实践更加开放的举措实际上掩盖了而不是消除了这种不安。试图将这些“解决方案”扩展到人工繁殖可能(a)暗示对这些做法的类似矛盾心理,(b)导致再次掩盖而不是解决这些歧义的主张。因此,这篇论文的结论是,收养可能是人工繁殖的一个有用的先例,但更多的是它提出了一些有待回答的问题,而不是作为直接应用的解决方案的来源。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
'Secrecy': what can artificial reproduction learn from adoption?

Frequent comparisons are made between adoptive families and those families formed through artificial means of reproduction, particularly those involving sperm and egg donation. It is claimed that problems from the latter arising out of the extent of the child's knowledge of his/her parentage may be handled with reference to the solutions found within adoption to similar problems. This paper examines those claims and questions the initial premise. It argues that problems remain within British adoption on the issue of openness, at the level of legislation, administration and professional practice. It argues that problems remain because of an uneasiness which still persists about adoption as an institution. Moves to make the practice of adoption more open have, in effect, disguised but not eliminated the uneasiness. An attempt to extend those 'solutions' to artificial reproduction might (a) suggest similar ambivalence about those practices and (b) lead to claims which again disguise rather than solve those ambiguities. The paper concludes therefore that adoption might be a useful precedent for artificial reproduction but more in the way it poses questions which remain to be answered, than as a source of solutions for direct application.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信