Conceptualising a child-centric paradigm : do we have freedom of choice in donor conception reproduction?

The moral obligation to have genetically related children

Donor conceived persons are likely to have a lower quality of life than persons who are genetically related to both parents. Empirical evidence is presented to corroborate this point. The evidence is subdivided into three sections: (1) negative experience of the donor conception itself, (2) negative effects of secrecy and openness and (3) negative effects of donor anonymity and donor identifiability. The principle of procreative beneficence requires parents to select the child with the best possible life. Given the difference in quality of life, intended parents should try to have a genetically related child. This finding is also a strong reason for society to invest public resources in the development of techniques that enable people to create genetically related children.

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.

Self-reported mental health status of donor sperm-conceived adults

While donor-conceived children have similar mental health outcomes compared to spontaneously conceived children, there is an inconsistency between studies investigating mental health outcomes of donor-conceived people in adulthood. This study is an online health survey that was completed by 272 donor sperm-conceived adults and 877 spontaneously conceived adults from around the world. Donor sperm-conceived adults had increased diagnoses of attention deficit disorder (P = 0.004), and autism (P = 0.044) in comparison to those conceived spontaneously. Donor sperm-conceived adults self-reported increased incidences of seeing a mental health professional (P < 0.001), identity formation problems (P < 0.001), learning difficulties (P < 0.001), panic attacks (P = 0.038), recurrent nightmares (sperm P = 0.038), and alcohol/drug dependency (P = 0.037). DASS-21 analysis revealed that donor sperm-conceived adults were also more stressed than those conceived spontaneously (P = 0.013). Both donor sperm and spontaneously conceived cohorts were matched for sex, age, height, alcohol consumption, smoking, exercise, own fertility, and maternal smoking. The increase in adverse mental health outcomes is consistent with some studies of donor-conceived adult mental health outcomes. These results are also consistent with the Developmental Origins of Health and Disease (DOHaD) phenomenon that has linked adverse perinatal outcomes, which have been observed in donor-conceived neonates, to increased risk of chronic disease, including mental health. Further work is required to reconcile our observations in adults to contrary observations reported in donor-conceived children.

Anonymous sperm donors' attitude towards donation and the release of identifying information

INTRODUCTION

Belgian legislation allows only strictly anonymous gamete donation and known donation (donation to a recipient known by the donor). Recently, an amendment of the legislation was proposed to grant donor offspring, as of 18 years old, the right to claim identifying information about their donor.

PURPOSE

The aim is to explore the attitude of actual sperm donors towards donation and the release of identifying information and to investigate which donors would be willing to donate when anonymity would be prohibited by law.

METHODS

All men who were accepted as sperm donors (n = 242) by AZ Jan Palfijn Hospital (Ghent, Belgium) were invited to complete an anonymous online survey. The response rate was 65.5%.

RESULTS

One in five (20.1%; n = 30) would continue sperm donation upon a legislation change towards identifiable donation. Three in four donors (75.2%) would agree to provide basic non-identifiable information about themselves and one in three (32.9%) would provide extra non-identifiable information such as a baby photo or a personal letter. Almost half of the donors (45.6%) would agree to donate in a system where the hospital can trace the donor at the child's request and contact the donor, leaving it to the donor to decide whether or not to have contact with the requesting donor child.

CONCLUSION

These findings show that only one in five current donors would continue to donate when identifiable. The study also demonstrates that current donors think more positive about alternative options and that nearly half of them are willing to be contacted by the hospital at the donor child's request, providing the donor can decide at that time whether or not to release his identity.

"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.

Secrets and disclosure in donor conception

This article considers the disclosure, sharing and exchange of information on being donor conceived within families, drawing on data from a study undertaken with donor-conceived adults registered with UK Donor Link (a voluntary DNA-linking register). This paper considers the narratives of how respondents found out they were donor-conceived and what events triggered disclosure of this information. This paper then goes on to examine the role secrecy played in their family life and uses the concept of 'display' to explore how secrecy affected their relationships with their immediate and extended family. Secrets are notoriously 'leaky' and we found complex patterns of knowing and uncertainty about whom in the family knew that the person was donor-conceived. We argue that what is kept secret and from whom provides insights into the multifaceted web of social relationships that can be created by donor-conception, and how knowledge can be managed and controlled in attempts to display and maintain family narratives of biogenetic connection.

Donor Conception and "Passing," or; Why Australian Parents of Donor-Conceived Children Want Donors Who Look Like Them

This article explores the processes through which Australian recipients select unknown donors for use in assisted reproductive technologies and speculates on how those processes may affect the future life of the donor-conceived person. I will suggest that trust is an integral part of the exchange between donors, recipients, and gamete agencies in donor conception and heavily informs concepts of relatedness, race, ethnicity, kinship, class, and visibility. The decision to be transparent (or not) about a child's genetic parentage affects recipient parents' choices of donor, about who is allowed to "know" children's genetic backgrounds, and how important it is to be able to "pass" as an unassisted conception. In this way, recipients must trust the process, institutions, and individuals involved in their treatment, as well as place trust in the future they imagine for their child. The current market for donor gametes reproduces normative conceptions of the nuclear family, kinship, and relatedness by facilitating "matching" donors to recipients by phenotype and cultural affinities. Recipient parents who choose not to prioritize "matching," and actively disclose the process of children's conceptions, may embark on a project of queering heteronormative family structures and place great trust in both their own children and changing social attitudes to reduce stigma and generate acceptance for non-traditional families.

Secondary use of empirical research data in medical ethics papers on gamete donation: forms of use and pitfalls

This paper aims to provide a description of how authors publishing in medical ethics journals have made use of empirical research data in papers on the topic of gamete or embryo donation by means of references to studies conducted by others (secondary use). Rather than making a direct contribution to the theoretical methodological literature about the role empirical research data could play or should play in ethics studies, the focus is on the particular uses of these data and the problems that can be encountered with this use. In the selection of papers examined, apart from being used to describe the context, empirical evidence was mainly used to recount problems that needed solving. Few of the authors looked critically at the quality of the studies they quoted, and several instances were found of empirical data being used poorly or inappropriately. This study provides some initial baseline evidence that shows empirical data, in the form of references to studies, are sometimes being used in inappropriate ways. This suggests that medical ethicists should be more concerned about the quality of the empirical data selected, the appropriateness of the choice for a particular type of data (from a particular type of study) and the correct integration of this evidence in sound argumentation. Given that empirical data can be misused also when merely cited instead of reported, it may be worthwhile to explore good practice requirements for this type of use of empirical data in medical ethics.