CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 6Reproductive Health and TechnologiesAssisted Reproductive Technology and Twin PregnancyMedical and Health Sciences Research

‘Once you open that Pandora’s box, you cannot close it’: a qualitative study on family relationships following insemination fraud

Zeghiche, Sabrina, Côté, Isabel, Lavoie, Kévin·2023·Reproductive BioMedicine Online
DOI 10.1016/j.rbmo.2023.04.011
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Research question Insemination fraud occurs when the spermatozoa intended for insemination have been intentionally swapped for another person's without the knowledge of the intended family. In what ways is this experienced by recipient parents and their offspring?Design This was a qualitative study involving semi-structured interviews with 15 participants (seven parents and eight donor-conceived individuals) affected by insemination fraud involving the same doctor in Canada.Results This study documents how insemination fraud is experienced by recipient parents and (their) offspring at the personal and relational levels. At the personal level, insemination fraud can induce a sense of agency loss for the recipient parents and a (temporary) sense of identity realignment for the offspring. At the relational level, it can lead to a reshuffling of genetic ties through the new genetic mapping it involves. This reshuffling can, in turn, disrupt kinship ties, leaving a deep imprint that some families struggle to overcome. Experiences differ depending on whether or not the progenitor is known, and when he is known, on whether it is another donor or the doctor himself.Conclusions Given the significant challenges that insemination fraud poses to the families who experience it, it is important that this practice be subjected to the medical, legal and social scrutiny it deserves.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.rbmo.2023.04.011

Cites

44 of 44 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Victims reported heightened suspicion, difficulties maintaining relationships, and tension or conflict within families and social networks.

    “Victims reported heightened suspicion, difficulties maintaining relationships, and tension or conflict within families and social networks”

    From Mental health and psychosocial sequelae of fraud victimization: a systematic review (2026) · cites this paper as Zeghiche et al., 2023

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Zeghiche, S., Côté, I., & Lavoie, K.
Affiliations
  • Université du Québec en Outaouais (CA)
  • Université Laval (CA)
Corresponding author
Zeghiche, Sabrina
ORCID
Venue
Reproductive BioMedicine Online
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2023-08
Volume
47
Issue
2
Pages
103220
ISSN
1472-6483 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.rbmo.2023.04.011
OpenAlex
W4366483299
Cited by
6
References
44
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 3
FWCI
1.44
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
Locations
  • Reproductive BioMedicine Online (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Reproductive Medicine › Reproductive Health and Technologies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Assisted Reproductive Technology and Twin Pregnancy
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Medical and Health Sciences Research
Keywords
family relationships, gene mapping, agency loss
MeSH terms
Family Relations, Humans, Insemination, Artificial, Heterologous, Male, Parent-Child Relations, Parents, Tissue Donors

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review