The ethics of anonymous gamete donation: is there a right to know one's genetic origins?

Who's your daddy? An ethical argument for disclosure to donor conceived children

To our knowledge, there have been few discussions in the andrology literature regarding the ethics of disclosure to donor conceived children. Our goal in this paper is to summarize the main reasons in favor of disclosure to engender more conversations about the ethics of donor conception in andrology circles. Specifically, we argue (1) transparency regarding gamete donation upholds the ethical principle of beneficence by improving the psychological health of donor conceived children; and (2) based on the ethical principle of autonomy, donor conceived children should have the right to know their donor status.

An Ethical Examination of Donor Anonymity and a Defence of a Legal Ban on Anonymous Donation and the Establishment of a Central Register

Many if not most sperm donors in the early years of IVF donated under conditions of anonymity. There is, however, a growing awareness of the ethical cost of withholding identifying parental information from donor children. Today, anonymous donation is illegal in many jurisdictions, and some jurisdictions have gone as far as retrospectively invalidating contracts whereby donors were guaranteed anonymity. This article provides a critical evaluation of the ethics and legality of anonymous donation. We defend Australian and British legislation that has outlawed donor anonymity, and we argue for the establishment of a central registry that provides donor children with the ability to easily and reliably access identifying information about their donor parents.

University students' opinion on gamete donor identification regimes

PURPOSE

This study aims to evaluate the opinion of university students about the identification or nonidentification of gamete donation and the probability of donation according to the different regimes.

METHODS

This was a cross-sectional observational study based on an online anonymous survey including questions about sociodemographic data, reasons for considering donations, information about the donation process and legislation, and their opinions about the different regimes and how they would influence donations.

RESULTS

In total, 1393 valid responses were obtained, with a mean age of 24.0 years (SD = 4.8), most of the respondents being female (68.5%), living in a relationship (56.7%), and without children (88.4%). The main reasons for considering donation would be altruism and monetary compensation. Overall, it was found that participants were poorly informed about the donation procedure and legislation. Students revealed preference for nonidentified donation, and they were less likely to donate in an open identity regime.

CONCLUSION

Most university students consider themselves poorly informed about gamete donation, express a preference for nonidentified gamete donation, and would less likely donate on an open identity basis. Thus, an identified regime may be less attractive to potential donors and lead to a decrease in the availability of gamete donors.

Medical ethics when moving towards non-anonymous gamete donation: the views of donors and recipients

Drawing on the views of donors and recipients about anonymity in a country that is experiencing a transition towards non-anonymous gamete donation mandated by the Constitutional Court, we explore how the intersection between rights-based approaches and an empirical framework enhances recommendations for ethical policy and healthcare. Between July 2017 and April 2018, 69 donors and 147 recipients, recruited at the Portuguese Public Bank of Gametes, participated in this cross-sectional study. Position towards anonymity was assessed through an open-ended question in a self-report questionnaire, which was subject to content analysis. Preference for an anonymous donation regime was mentioned by 82.6% of donors and 89.8% of recipients; and all those with children. Instead of the rights-based reasoning used by the Constitutional Court, donors highlighted concerns over future relationships and recipients focused on socioethical values linked with the safeguard of safety, privacy and confidentiality. The remaining participants advocated the choice between anonymity or non-anonymity (double-track policy), invoking respect for their autonomy. The complex, diverse ethical views and reasoning of donors and recipients expand a traditionally dichotomous discussion. Their perspectives challenge the transition towards non-anonymity and international guidelines, raising awareness to the need for their involvement in the design of policies to enable choice according to their values and preferences, and of psychosocial counselling responsive to their socioethical concerns and sensitive to their parental status. Empirical frameworks complement rights-based approaches to uphold justice, fairness and equal respect, and to incorporate utility, beneficence and non-maleficence in policymaking and healthcare in the transition towards non-anonymity.

The forgotten group of donor conceived persons

A forgotten group of donor-conceived persons is those who believe that gamete donation is morally wrong and should be prohibited. Although they share the two main arguments with the anti-anonymity group, i.e. the psychological harm as a consequence of lacking the necessary information for identity construction, and the violation of a fundamental human right, namely the right to be cared for by one’s genetic parents, their voices are largely ignored in the debate. The anti-donation group also has a large part of the ideology of the family in common with the anti-anonymity group. The paper concludes that the anti-donation position should be accepted as an equivalent position. Moreover, given the similarities between the two positions, people who accept the claims of the anti-anonymity donor-conceived persons should explain why the claims of the anti-donation group should not be honoured.

A Systematic Review of Qualitative Studies Investigating Motives and Experiences of Recipients of Anonymous Gamete Donation

The decision to use an anonymous gamete donation in fertility treatment could have significant long-term psychological and social effects for all stakeholders involved. In light of the growing recognition of donor-conceived children's right to know their genetic parentage, this entails profound ethical implications. This review aims to carve out the full spectrum of recipients' motives and experiences related to donor anonymity which could serve as an analytical framework for future ethical and sociological research on issues of donor anonymity. This review was conducted following a seven-step approach for systematic reviews of empirical bioethics literature. The characteristics and quality of the studies included in this review were reported. Data analysis was conducted using qualitative content analysis and was informed by sociological functionalist theorizations of ignorance. The 53 studies selected showed a diverse spectrum of characteristics concerning date and country of study, methodology, family type of participants, sample size, and the timing of data collection in relation to the stage of treatment. A total of 22 categories of motives and experiences of recipients concerning donor anonymity were identified inductively and grouped into five main categories. Donor anonymity was identified as a eufunctional form of ignorance, by which the recipients experienced or intended to control, regulate, or protect inter-stakeholder relations. Interpreting recipients' motives and experiences concerning donor anonymity as a form of ignorance directed toward particular stakeholders helps reframe the discourse on donor anonymity. It is a fruitful approach that can be refined further and applied in future research. This review identified possible directions for future investigations on motives for donor anonymity: the need for more thorough inquiries into the change in recipients' preferences over time, such as in the form of longitudinal studies and research on the perspective of non-biological parents.

Well-being, Gamete Donation, and Genetic Knowledge: The Significant Interest View

The Significant Interest view entails that even if there were no medical reasons to have access to genetic knowledge, there would still be reason(s) for prospective parents to use an identity-release donor as opposed to an anonymous donor. This view does not depend on either the idea that genetic knowledge is profoundly prudentially important or that donor-conceived people have a right to genetic knowledge. Rather, it turns on general claims about (1) parents' obligations to help promote their children's well-being and (2) the connection between a person's well-being and the satisfaction of what I call their "worthwhile significant subjective interests." To put this view (too) simply, the fact that a donor-conceived person-who knows she is donor-conceived-is likely to be very interested in acquiring genetic knowledge gives prospective parents a weighty reason to use an identity-release donor. This is because parents should promote their children's well-being through the satisfaction of their children's worthwhile significant interests.

[Ethical and legal questions of anonymity and confidentiality in gamete donation]

Spain is the European country where more assisted reproduction techniques (ART) are performed, reaching 9% of newborns. The objective of this article is to introduce the legal framework and to analyze some ethical questions, not without controversy, in relation to the anonymity of gamete donors and the concealment of origin by ART from their children. Spanish legislation establishes the relative anonymity of donors: both gamete recipients and born children have the right to obtain general information about them as long as their identity is not included, but in situations of risk to the life and health of the children allows your bankruptcy. Likewise, an unequivocal right to privacy and confidentiality of submission to the ART is established. The movement aimed at introducing in our country a legislative amendment that ends the anonymity of gamete donors is based on the right of those children to know their biological origin. Along with legal changes, the attitude of parents and professionals must gradually change towards more transparent and responsible communication, based on the experiences of adults conceived by these techniques, and those adopted. Building values such as trust and truth in the family relationships from responsibility requires placing the children, largely forgotten and the most vulnerable part, at the center of the debate.

Narrative Devices: Neurotechnologies, Information, and Self-Constitution

This article provides a conceptual and normative framework through which we may understand the potentially ethically significant roles that information generated by neurotechnologies about our brains and minds may play in our construction of our identities. Neuroethics debates currently focus disproportionately on the ways that third parties may (ab)use these kinds of information. These debates occlude interests we may have in whether and how we ourselves encounter information about our own brains and minds. This gap is not yet adequately addressed by most allusions in the literature to potential identity impacts. These lack the requisite conceptual or normative foundations to explain why we should be concerned about such effects or how they might be addressed. This article seeks to fill this gap by presenting a normative account of identity as constituted by embodied self-narratives. It proposes that information generated by neurotechnologies can play significant content-supplying and interpretive roles in our construction of our self-narratives. It argues, to the extent that these roles support and detract from the coherence and inhabitability of these narratives, access to information about our brains and minds engages non-trivial identity-related interests. These claims are illustrated using examples drawn from empirical literature reporting reactions to information generated by implantable predictive BCIs and psychiatric neuroimaging. The article concludes by highlighting ways in which information generated by neurotechnologies might be governed so as to protect information subjects' interests in developing and inhabiting their own identities.

Self-esteem and problem behavior in Dutch adolescents conceived through sperm donation in planned lesbian parent families

Until 2004, Dutch women seeking donor insemination through medical facilities could opt for open-identity or anonymous donors. Since then, Dutch law only permits open-identity donation. The present study compared the well-being of adolescents conceived before 2004 through known, open-identity, and anonymous donors, and born into planned lesbian parent families (i.e., the mothers identified as lesbian before the children were conceived). The sixty-seven participating adolescents (M_age = 16.04 years) completed the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale and the Youth Self-Report, and answered questions about their donor. Thirty-three were conceived through known, twenty-two through open-identity, and twelve through anonymous donors. No significant associations were found between donor type and self-esteem or problem behavior. Likewise, no significant differences were found on these two variables for adolescents with known donors who did or did not play important roles in their lives. For adolescents conceived with sperm from as-yet unknown donors (open-identity or anonymous), feeling uncomfortable about not knowing the donor was associated with lower self-esteem and more externalizing problem behavior. That donor type was found to have no bearing on adolescent self-esteem or problem behavior may be useful to prospective lesbian parents.

Oocyte donation disclosure decisions: a longitudinal follow-up at middle childhood

Few studies have captured oocyte donation (OD) parents' decision processes about intended and actual disclosure over time. Likewise, OD children's perceptions about their family composition during middle childhood are underexplored. To address these gaps, a longitudinally followed cohort of OD recipient families was invited to participate in a qualitative, follow-up study. With an 86% response rate after 12 years, families were composed of oocyte recipient mothers (n = 6) and biological fathers (n = 6) representing 12 donor-oocyte conceived children (10.33 ± 1.23 years; mean ± SD). Of the 12 children, two that were aware and two that were unaware of their conceptual origins completed conversational interviews. Only one family in the initial cohort had disclosed OD to their children by the 12-year follow-up, despite 43% of parents intending to disclose and another 43% undecided about disclosure during pregnancy. Four parental disclosure patterns emerged at 12 years: (i) wanting to disclose; (ii) conflicted about disclosure; (iii) not planning to disclose; and (iv) having disclosed. Children that were unaware of their conceptual origins displayed no knowledge of their method of conception. There is a need for family-centric interventions to assist 'wanting to disclose' parents in their disclosure process and 'conflicted about disclosure' parents in their decision-making process post-OD treatment.

"I want us to be a normal family": Toward an understanding of the functions of anonymity among U.S. oocyte donors and recipients

BACKGROUND

Anonymity remains the more common practice in gamete donations, but legislation prohibiting anonymity with a goal of protecting donor-conceived children's right to know their genetic origins is becoming more common. However, given the dearth of research investigating the function of anonymity for donors and recipients, it is unclear whether these policies will accomplish their goals. The aim of this study was to explore experiences with anonymity among oocyte donors and recipients who participated in an anonymous donor oocyte program and to understand the ways in which anonymity functions for them.

METHODS

Semistructured interviews were conducted with 50 women: 28 oocyte donors and 22 recipients who were recruited from an academic center for reproductive medicine in the United States.

RESULTS

Donors and recipients view anonymity both as a mechanism to protect the interests of all parties (recipients, donors, and donor-conceived children) and as a point of conflict. Specifically, three key areas were identified where both donors and recipients saw anonymity as having an important role: relieving anxieties about family structures and obligations; protecting their interests and those of donor-conceived children (while acknowledging where interests conflict); and managing the future.

CONCLUSION

As gamete donation increasingly moves away from the practice of anonymity, examining why anonymity matters to stakeholders will be helpful in devising strategies to successfully implement identity-release options.

Cross border reproductive care (CBRC): a growing global phenomenon with multidimensional implications (a systematic and critical review)

PURPOSE

Many people travel abroad to access fertility treatments. This growing phenomenon is known as cross border reproductive care (CBRC) or fertility tourism. Due to its complex nature and implications worldwide, CBRC has become an emerging dilemma deserving more attention on the global healthcare agenda.

METHODS

According to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, a systematic review of the literature was performed for all relevant full-text articles published in PubMed in English during the past 18 years to explore CBRC phenomenon in the new millennium.

RESULTS

Little is known about the accurate magnitude and scope of CBRC around the globe. In this systematic and critical review, we identify three major dimensions of CBRC: legal, economic, and ethical. We analyze each of these dimensions from clinical and practical perspectives.

CONCLUSION

CBRC is a growing reality worldwide with potential benefits and risks. Therefore, it is very crucial to regulate the global market of CBRC on legal, economic, and ethical bases in order to increase harmonization and reduce any forms of exploitation. Establishment of accurate international statistics and a global registry will help diminish the current information gap surrounding the CBRC phenomenon.

Narrative Identity in Third Party Reproduction: Normative Aspects and Ethical Challenges

In the last few decades, assisted reproduction has introduced new challenges to the way people conceive and build their families. While the numbers of donor-conceived (DC) individuals have increased worldwide, there are still many controversies concerning access to donor information. Is there a fundamental moral right to know one's genetic background? What does identity in DC families mean? Is there any relationship between identity formation and disclosure of genetic origins? These questions are addressed by analysing core regulatory discourse (ethical recommendations and codes of practice). This analysis shows that the notion of narrative identity is suitable for defining and answering these questions. This review analyses the meaning of resemblance in DC families and the way donors are selected following affinity-ties and discusses disclosure strategies and agreements. As a preliminary conclusion, it could be said that, in the field of third-party reproduction, knowing about the donor conception significantly contributes towards the development of a narrative identity and also serves as a moral basis for the child's right to know.

Derivation of male germ cells from induced pluripotent stem cells by inducers: A review

Induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) refer to stem cells that are artificially produced using a new technology known as cellular reprogramming, which can use gene transduction in somatic cells. There are numerous potential applications for iPSCs in the field of stem cell biology becauase they are able to give rise to several different cell features of lineages such as three-germ layers. Primordial germ cells, generated via in vitro differentiation of iPSCs, have been demonstrated to produce functional gametes. Therefore, in this review we discussed past and recent advances in the in vitro differentiation of germ cells using pluripotent stem cells with an emphasis on iPSCs. Although this domain of research is still in its infancy, exploring development mechanisms of germ cells is promising, especially in humans, to promote future reproductive and developmental engineering technologies. While few studies have evaluated the ability and efficiency of iPSCs to differentiate toward male germ cells in vitro by different inducers, the given effect was investigated in this review.

Sperm Donation and the Right to Privacy

Sperm donation is an increasingly common method of assisted reproduction. In the debate on sperm donation, the right to privacy - construed as a right that refers to the limits of the realm of information to which others have access - plays a pivotal role with regard to two questions. The first question is whether the sperm donor's right to privacy implies his right to retain his anonymity, the second is whether the gamete recipients' right to privacy entitles them to withhold information about the circumstances of their conception from their donor-conceived offspring. In this contribution, I tackle these two interrelated questions. In part (1), I defend the view that there is a prima facie right of sperm donors to remain anonymous. Part (2) widens the perspective by taking into consideration the welfare of donor-conceived offspring. I argue that anonymity may harm the child only if the gametes' recipients decide to disclose information about the circumstances of her birth to the child. Non-disclosure of these circumstances, however, is morally problematic because it may not necessarily harm, but wrong the child. In section (3), I attempt to rebut some arguments in defense of non-disclosure. In part (4), I defend the view that the best practice of sperm donation would be 'direct donation', i.e. that the identity of the donor is known from the time of conception. Part (5) concludes.

[Who decides what data should be recorded in the medical history in relation to the biological origin?]

Cada vez es más frecuente que se produzcan peticiones de pacientes o de sus representantes relativas a que determinada información no quede registrada en la historia clínica o que, si ya lo está, se elimine. Sin duda esto es debido a que saben que a los historiales clínicos acceden numerosos profesionales que en muchas ocasiones no guardan una relación estrictamente asistencial con ellos y que de manera generalizada se copian antecedentes médicos que de forma innecesaria se reproducen en los diversos informes de alta o de asistencia. El problema produce situaciones de conflicto cuando los datos objeto de controversia hacen referencia a aspectos clínicos especialmente sensibles para la intimidad personal y familiar, como ocurre con las técnicas de reproducción asistida. Por ello, la pregunta que cabe formular es: ¿quién decide qué datos deben constar en la historia clínica y en función de qué criterios debe tomarse esa decisión?

Ethics and regulation of inter-country medically assisted reproduction: a call for action

The proliferation of medically assisted reproduction (MAR) for the treatment of infertility has brought benefit to many individuals around the world. But infertility and its treatment continue to be a cause of suffering, and over the past decade, there has been a steady growth in a new global market of inter-country medically assisted reproduction (IMAR) involving 'third-party' individuals acting as surrogate mothers and gamete donors in reproductive collaborations for the benefit of other individuals and couples who wish to have children. At the same time there is evidence of a double standard of care for third-party women involved in IMAR, violations of human rights of children and women, and extreme abuses that are tantamount to reproductive trafficking. This paper is the report of an inter-disciplinary working group of experts who convened in Israel to discuss the complex issues of IMAR. In Israel too IMAR practices have grown rapidly in recent years, mainly because of restrictions on access to domestic surrogacy for same sex couples and a chronically insufficient supply of egg cells for the treatment of couples and singles in need. Drawing upon local expertise, the paper describes documented practices that are harmful, suggests principles of good practice based on an ethic of care, and calls for action at the international, national and professional levels to establish a human rights based system of international governance for IMAR based on three regulatory models: public health monitoring, inter-country adoption, and trafficking in human beings, organs and tissues.

How best to protect the vital interests of donor-conceived individuals: prohibiting or mandating anonymity in gamete donations?

Anonymous gamete donation continues to be practised in most jurisdictions around the world, but this practice has come under increased scrutiny. Thus, several countries now mandate that donors be identifiable to their genetic offspring. Critics contend that anonymous gamete donation harms the interests of donor-conceived individuals and that protection of these interests calls for legal prohibition of anonymous donations. Among the vital interests that critics claim are thwarted by anonymous donation are an interest in having a strong family relationship, health interests, and an interest in forming a healthy identity. This article discusses each of these interests and examines what they could involve. The legislation in two countries is considered: Spain, which mandates anonymous gamete donation, and the UK, which prohibits such practice, to assess how these different legislations might or might not protect these vital interests.

Mitochondrial donation and 'the right to know'

In this paper, I examine two key arguments advanced by the Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority (HFEA) and the Nuffield Council justifying anonymous mitochondrial donation, even though the 'right to know' is recognised in standard gamete donation. I argue that the two arguments they offer, what I call the argument from genetic connection and the argument from personal characteristics, are unsuccessful. However, I provide additional reasons for why recognising the right to know in gamete donation but not in mitochondrial donation may be justified. I further argue that the status quo in the UK, which is to not recognise a right to know in mitochondrial donation, is provisionally acceptable.

The French bioethics public consultation and the anonymity doctrine: empirical ethics and normative assumptions

The French bioethics laws of 1994 contain the principles of the anonymity and non commodification of all donations of body parts and products including gametes in medically assisted reproduction. The two revisions of the law, in 2004 and 2011 have upheld the rule. In view of the latest revision process, the French government organized a large public consultation in 2009 ("Etats généraux de la bioéthique"). Within the event a "consensus conference" was held in Rennes about different aspects of assisted reproduction (access, anonymity, gratuity and surrogacy). In what follows we shall first describe the anonymity clause for gamete donations in the French law and the debates surrounding it. We shall then analyse the procedure used for the 2009 public consultation and the related consensus conference, as well as its upshot concerning the anonymity doctrine. In this respect we shall compare the citizens' own recommendations on the gamete anonymity issue and its translation in the consultation's final report drafted by a philosopher mandated by the organizing committee. Whereas the final report cited some fundamental ethical arguments as reason for upholding the provisions of the law-most notably the refusal of the 'all biological' approach to reproductive issues-citizens were more careful and tentative in their position although they also concluded that for pragmatic reasons the anonymity rule should continue to hold. We shall argue that the conservative upshot of the public consultation is due to some main underlying presuppositions concerning the citizens' role and expertise as well as to the specific design of the consensus conference. Our conclusion will be that public consultations and consensus conferences can only serve as an empirical support for devising suitable bioethics norms by using second-order normative assumptions.

Human iPS Cell-Derived Germ Cells: Current Status and Clinical Potential

Recently, fertile spermatozoa and oocytes were generated from mouse induced pluripotent (iPS) cells using a combined in vitro and in vivo induction system. With regard to germ cell induction from human iPS cells, progress has been made particularly in the male germline, demonstrating in vitro generation of haploid, round spermatids. Although iPS-derived germ cells are expected to be developed to yield a form of assisted reproductive technology (ART) that can address unmet reproductive needs, genetic and/or epigenetic instabilities abound in iPS cell generation and germ cell induction. In addition, there is still room to improve the induction protocol in the female germline. However, rapid advances in stem cell research are likely to make such obstacles surmountable, potentially translating induced germ cells into the clinical setting in the immediate future. This review examines the current status of the induction of germ cells from human iPS cells and discusses the clinical potential, as well as future directions.