In an interesting contrast to the study put out by the Institute for American Values, a study published in a recent issue of Pediatrics found that children of lesbian couples, conceived with donor sperm, do better than typical families.
According to the article on CNN, the 25-year study followed 78 couples who conceived using donor sperm. The mothers were interviewed during pregnancy or the donor-insemination process, and when the children were ages 2, 5, 10 and 17. The children were also interviewed four times as they matured.
When the children were 17, they took an online questionnaire, which looked at their psychological, social, and academic adjustment.
Researchers used the Child Behavior Checklist, which is a standard method of determining behavioral and social health in children. The children of the lesbian couples did better than average on the test, when compared to typical families. They scored higher in psychological well being, and had fewer behavioral problems.
As for why they did better (as opposed to doing just as well), it's not clear. It could be because these were well planned pregnancies, very much wanted, and the moms were older (and therefore more mature) than the average family.
As with any study, there is always the potential for bias, and this study was on the small side with 78 families. However, there are some key differences between this study and the study from the Institute for American Values (which was also on sperm donor-conceived children):
- This study appeared in a peer reviewed, professional journal.
- While funding for this study did come from a gay/lesbian advocacy group, according to the researchers, they had no part in the design or carrying out of the study.
- Standard tools of assessment were used in evaluating the children, as opposed to questionnaires developed solely for the study's purpose.
This is certainly a topic that needs more research. But it does show that donor-conceived children are not necessarily at greater risk for psychological distress, as the study from the Institute for American Values would have you believe.
What are your thoughts? Please feel free to share in the comments below. I'd love to hear from you!
You would do everyone, including yourself, a favor if you would simply say that a study whose findings you like, you think is a good study, and a study whose findings you don’t like, you think is a bad study. Throwing around terms like “peer review” and academic “standards” — concepts which you are not trained in, which you clearly do not understand, and which you shamelessly use for tactical rather than substantive purposes — wastes everyone’s time, including yours.
David,
I’m not sure why you feel I’m using any study for “tactical purposes”. As I stated above, any study is liable for bias. The topic does need more research.
I only pointed out that the study that appears in Pediatrics does have strong points over your study from the Institute for American Values.
You think I’m “throwing around” terms like peer review? Again, the study appeared in Pediatrics – a peer reviewed journal. There is no question of that, it’s a fact.
[Note: I think it's important for my readers to know that David Blankenhorn is the founder/president of the Institute for American Values.]
Just to respond: Our study of adults conceived through sperm donation has 485 young adults in that category, with comparison groups of 562 raised by adoptive parents and 563 raised by their biological parents. All of these groups were recruited from a web-based panel of more than a million American households. The findings are reported in “My Daddy’s Name is Donor,” a report available at FamilyScholars dot org.
Of the 485 donor offspring in our study, 39 of them were born to lesbian couples. That is not a large number, but read the fine print on most studies of children of lesbian or gay parents and you’ll see that pretty grand claims are made based on numbers often not that different.
In our study, the sperm donor offspring conceived to lesbian couples had about twice the risk of substance abuse problems compared to those raised by their biological parents. About half of them agreed “My sperm donor is half of who I am.” Two-thirds wonder what their sperm donor’s family is like. There is much more reported in the full report, as well as a discussion of how sperm donor offspring born to lesbian couples are similar to and different from those born to single mothers or to heterosexual couples. (Let me state here that based on what I’ve learned, I’m concerned about anybody having a baby through sperm donation: gay, straight, coupled or not.)
Our study has limitations, like any study, but it does raise, I think, urgent questions that should be given some attention when thinking about the experience of sperm donor offspring born to lesbian couples or anyone else.
Regarding the study reported in Pediatrics, a serious limitation of that study is that it is based on a sample of lesbian moms who volunteered to be studied. It’s plausible that people who volunteer to have their families studied might have better-functioning families than the average, which makes it hard to know what to make of their findings that the children are doing great.
I’ve written about these questions at FamilyScholars dot org in a post titled “Studying the Sperm Donor Conceived Offspring of Lesbian Couples.” I make it clear, there, that it’s a challenge for any researcher to come up with representative samples of an overall hard-to-find population.
My conclusion is that the question of how the sperm donor conceived children of lesbian couples fare is still an open question. I hope more researchers will be taking it on, and that some substantial funding comes along to help researchers construct really excellent, gold standard, longitudinal studies.
My thanks,
Elizabeth Marquardt
co-investigator, My Daddy’s Name is Donor
Vice President for Family Studies,
Institute for American Values
The study of children of Lesbian Couples found 0% abuse!
It is a fact that abuse occurs in Lesbian Relationships at around the same rate as in heterosexual relatioships. So the study is non-representitive.
Small sample, self selected, self reported, initiated and funded by interested party = highly dubious.