Beyond consanguinity risk: developing donor birth limits that consider psychosocial risk factors

Meeting multiple same-donor offspring: psychosocial challenges

Debates regarding donor-conceived people's rights to genetic information have caused some jurisdictions to abolish donor anonymity. Moreover, voluntary services have been established whose primary focus is providing possibilities to find information about the donor. A less discussed consequence is that donor-conceived people also find information about donor half-siblings: people conceived through the same donor. In the recent climate of openness and online DNA tests, there is an increased chance of finding multiple donor half-siblings. This study explored how donor-conceived people experience meeting multiple same-donor offspring in a group setting. Second, the study investigated donor-conceived people's need for support when meeting multiple donor half-siblings. A qualitative approach was used. Nineteen donor-conceived offspring who participated in donor half-sibling network meetings were interviewed. Using a grounded theory approach three themes were identified regarding group aspects: (i) defining group membership; (ii) regulating closeness and distance; and (iii) managing group dynamics. Professional support needs in relation to these themes were also analysed. While establishing relationships between donor half-siblings are viewed as generally more beneficial than connecting with a donor, this study showed that these new relationships also come with their challenges, and counselling may need to be refined towards a more specific same donor-offspring relationships' framework.

Finding people like me: contact among young adults who share an open-identity sperm donor

STUDY QUESTION

What interests and experiences do donor-conceived adults have with respect to same-donor peers/siblings, when they share an open-identity sperm donor?

SUMMARY ANSWER

Donor-conceived young adults report considerable interest in, and primarily positive experiences with, their same-donor peers, with some finding ‘people like me’.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

Through mutual-consent contact registries, director-to-consumer DNA testing and other means, donor-conceived people with anonymous (i.e. closed-identity) sperm donors are gaining identity-related information from, and establishing relationships with, people who share their donor.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

Semi-structured, in depth telephone and Skype interviews with 47 donor-conceived young adults were carried out over a 31-month period. Inclusion criteria were being one of the first adults for each donor to obtain their identity and being at least 1-year post donor-information release.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

Participants (aged 19–29 years, 68.1% women) were born to female same-sex couple parents (46.8%), a single mother (29.8%) or heterosexual couple parents (23.4%); all parents had conceived through the same US open-identity sperm donation program. The dataset was analyzed thematically and included interviews from only one participant per family. Each participant had a different donor.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

Interest in, and experiences with, same-donor peers suggested that they occupy a unique position in the lives of donor-conceived young adults who share their open-identity donor. Contact can provide identity-relevant information and support through the availability of relationships (whether actualized or potential), shared experiences, and easier relationships than with their donor. Most donor-conceived young adults felt positively about their contact experiences. Of those not yet linked, almost all expressed an interest to do so. Some had met the children raised by their donor. When asked, all expressed an interest in doing so.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

Interviews were conducted with donor-conceived young adults who were uncommon in their generation in terms of: having an open-identity sperm donor; the majority knowing about their family’s origins from childhood; and having parents that accessed at the time one of the only open-identity sperm donation programs. Further research is needed to assess applicability to all donor-conceived adults; findings may be more relevant to the growing number of people who have an open-identity donor and learned in childhood about their family’s origins.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

Participants were among the first generation of donor-conceived adults with an open-identity sperm donor. Their experiences and perspectives can provide essential guidance to programs and others with similar origins. Early disclosure of family origins and identifying the donor did not diminish the young adults’ interest in their same-donor peers. Positive experiences suggest that the benefits of contact include not only identity-relevant information (through shared traits and experiences), but also relationships with and support from people who understand the uncommon experience of being donor conceived. Implications include the need to educate families and intended parents about the potential benefits of knowing others who are donor conceived, and the risk of unexpected linking across families by donors, regardless of donor-conceived person or family interest.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

The study was funded by the Lesbian Health Fund of GLMA: Health Professionals Advancing LGBTQ Equality. The authors have no conflict of interest to declare.

New realities for the practice of egg donation: a family-building perspective

The practice of egg donation in the United States has been based on assumptions about secrecy, anonymity, and contact among the parties that require reexamination. This article argues for the need to acknowledge that secrecy and anonymity are no longer viable assumptions and that all parties may have a strong interest in contact and connection. A shift in the narrative for the practice of egg donation from a purely medical perspective to a broader family-building perspective is described. Significant practice changes to accommodate the new realities, rooted in a family-building perspective, are outlined in the arenas of medical record retention, informed consent, recipient and donor preparation and counseling, facilitation of contact among the parties, and outreach to other medical professionals, with the goal of promoting not only healthy pregnancy, but also long-term positive family functioning.

Evolving minimum standards in responsible international sperm donor offspring quota

An international working group was established with the aim of making recommendations on the number of offspring for a sperm donor that should be allowable in cases of international use of his sperm. Considerations from genetic, psychosocial, operational and ethical points of view were debated. For these considerations, it was assumed that current developments in genetic testing and Internet possibilities mean that, now, all donors are potentially identifiable by their offspring, so no distinction was made between anonymous and non-anonymous donation. Genetic considerations did not lead to restrictive limits (indicating that up to 200 offspring or more per donor may be acceptable except in isolated social-minority situations). Psychosocial considerations on the other hand led to proposals of rather restrictive limits (10 families per donor or less). Operational and ethical considerations did not lead to more or less concrete limits per donor, but seemed to lie in-between those resulting from the aforementioned ways of viewing the issue. In the end, no unifying agreed figure could be reached; however the consensus was that the number should never exceed 100 families. The conclusions of the group are summarized in three recommendations.

A survey of 1700 women who formed their families using donor spermatozoa

This paper reports the results of an online survey of 1700 recipients of donor spermatozoa conducted by the Donor Sibling Registry, aiming to understand the perspectives of respondents who had used donor spermatozoa. The survey examined: choice of sperm bank and donor; reporting of births and genetic disorders; disclosure; contact with donor and half-siblings; regulation of sperm donor activity and genetic testing; and access to medical information. The respondents formed three groups: single women; women in a same-sex relationship; and women in a heterosexual relationship. Some differences between the three cohorts were observed: preinsemination counselling; acceptance of donors without medical records or with chronic or late-onset diseases; awareness of choice of bank and type of donor; and views on the right of offspring to know their genetic origins. However, important areas of common ground were identified: the wish by those who had used an anonymous donor that they had used an open-identity donor; support for, and willingness to pay for, comprehensive genetic testing of donors; and desire for access to their donor's family health information. The implications of these results for policies concerning the use and management of donor spermatozoa will be discussed. This paper reports the results of a survey of 1700 women who used donor spermatozoa to conceive a child. The survey considers their views on the following areas: choice of sperm bank and donor; reporting of births and genetic disorders; disclosure; contact with donor and half-siblings; regulation of sperm donor activity and genetic testing; and access to medical information. This was an online survey was designed and conducted by the Donor Sibling Registry (DSR), a US-based non-profit organization that supports donor sperm recipients, donors and donor-conceived people. The survey aimed to understand the experiences, perspectives and concerns of women who had used donor spermatozoa. The respondents formed three groups: single women; women in a same sex relationship; and women in a heterosexual relationship. Some differences between the three groups were observed: preinsemination counselling; acceptance of donors without medical records or with chronic or late-onset diseases; awareness of choice of bank and type of donor; and the right of offspring to know their genetic origins. However, despite these differences, important areas of common ground were identified: the wish by those who had used an anonymous donor that they had used an open-identity donor; support for, and a willingness to pay for, comprehensive genetic testing of donors; and desire for access to their donor's family health information. The implications of these results for policies concerning the use and management of donor spermatozoa will be discussed.

Sperm donor limits that control for the 'relative' risk associated with the use of open-identity donors

The majority of countries that support the use of donor insemination (DI) in artificial reproductive technology (ART) limit the number of children born from one donor. The setting of these donor limits, though intended to control for the risk of inadvertent half-sibling unions between the offspring of anonymous donors, actually have no evidence base. Controlling for the risk of inadvertent half-sibling unions may soon become unnecessary due to the increasing world-wide use of open-identity sperm donors and the revocation of donor anonymity in many countries. With the shift from anonymous to open-identity donation, the central issue is not the risk of genetic abnormality from inadvertent half-sibling consanguinity; it is the psycho-social impact of the multiple use of open-identity sperm donors. Despite this, the jurisdictions that allow or mandate the use of open-identity donors continue to observe existing limits that do not consider nor specifically control for the psycho-social impact of the multiple use of open-identity sperm donors. It is proposed that: (i) conservative interim donor limits be placed on the multiple use of open-identity donors, while research into the psycho-social impact of disclosure is undertaken to inform the establishment of evidence-based limits; and (ii) the existing limits in jurisdictions where anonymity is still commonly practiced or protected could be raised, if an updated mathematical model was used for calculating evidence-based anonymous donor limits.