Les couples qui procréent par don de sperme en informent-ils leurs enfants ?

"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.

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.

Disclosure of sperm donation: a comparison between solo mother and two-parent families with identifiable donors

Disclosure of donor conception to children was compared between solo mother and two-parent families with children aged 4–8 years conceived since the removal of donor anonymity in the UK. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 31 heterosexual solo mothers and 47 heterosexual mothers with partners to investigate their decisions and experiences about identifiable donation and disclosure to their children. No significant difference was found in the proportion of mothers in each family type who had told their children about their donor conception (solo mothers 54.8%; partnered mothers 36.2%). Of those who had not told, a significantly higher proportion of solo mothers than partnered mothers intended to disclose (P < 0.05). Partnered mothers were more likely than solo mothers to feel neutral, ambivalent or negative about having used an identifiable donor (P < 0.05), and were less likely to consider children's knowledge of their genetic origins as extremely important (P < 0.05). These findings are relevant to provision of counselling services as it cannot be assumed that parents will tell their children about their origins or their entitlement to request the identity of their donor at the age of 18 years. Further qualitative research would increase understanding of solo mothers' attitudes towards disclosure.

[Information, transmission, secrecy: What kind of discourse for children born by gamete donation?]

The number of children born through gamete donation grows by the conceptions made abroad. All the couples engaging in this process do not benefit from of the same support around the issues raised by the information to the child and its terms. Through a literature review, the authors explore the data on information intentions from parents to child and to entourage, the influence of the issue of anonymity, the effective rate information, the influences of the age of the child, the terms information and links with family dynamics. The quantitative findings underscore the complexity of this task, since 10-90 % of couples report an intention to inform their child from conception through donation, while 5-30 % actually inform them after birth. Fifty-nine to 93 % of the relatives are nevertheless informed. The authors will highlight the psychopathological tracks that support the possibility of narration for parents: the internalization of their infertility, the representation of the gift, the development of rivalry towards donors, the secrecy and privacy. The objective of this article is to enable carers to accompany this reflection among future parents, a better listening of the issues raise by the couples allowing shoring their process.

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

A growing number of jurisdictions hold that gamete donors must be identifiable to the children born with their eggs or sperm, on grounds that being able to know about one's genetic origins is a fundamental moral right. But the argument for that belief has not yet been adequately made.