Managing absence and presence of child-parent resemblance: a challenge for heterosexual couples following sperm donation

Mapping Ethical, Legal, and Social Implications (ELSI) of gamete donation

RESEARCH QUESTION

This scoping review investigates the Ethical, Legal, and Social Implications (ELSI) of gamete donation, a critical facet of Assisted Reproductive Technologies, by analyzing the evolving research scope, methodological approaches, and the geographical skew in the literature. Despite the increased global uptake of donor gametes, current scholarship predominantly emanates from Western contexts and focuses on majoritized groups. This bias constrains the universality of research findings and limits their applicability across varied legal, cultural, and social contexts, underscoring a need for broader inclusivity.

DESIGN

We addressed 867 pivotal articles published between 1999 and 2019.

RESULTS

Our analysis reveals a discernible escalation in research volume, with 62% based on empirical research. The intellectual landscape unfolds into four dominant clusters: Regulatory Frameworks, Incentives, and Access; Family Dynamics and Genetic Linkages; Identity and Privacy in Donor Conception; and Cultural and Societal Attitudes towards GD. Each cluster highlights nuanced dimensions of gamete donation, from regulatory intricacies and psychological welfare to identity ethics and cultural perceptions.

CONCLUSION

Our findings advocate for a shift towards more globally representative and methodologically inclusive research. By integrating diverse cultural narratives and expanding geographical breadth, future research can offer holistic understandings of gamete donation, fostering equitable and culturally resonant practices and policies worldwide.

Should a gamete bank verify the non-medical information provided by a donor?

Over the years, cases of fraud have been discovered where donors have been lying about their characteristics. The question raised by such cases is what the responsibility of the gamete bank is for the non-medical information provided by the donor. The problem is that extended donor profiles contain a large amount of information about different aspects of the donor's life and that not all this information can be verified or is worth verifying. Two cases are scrutinized in more detail: education and criminal record. The proposed solution is to split the donor information into a verified and a non-verified part with the non-verified part falling under the responsibility of the donor. The question of what information should be included in the verified part of the donor profile is still open.

'Doing' kinship: heterosexual parents' experiences of non-genetic parenthood through donor conception

RESEARCH QUESTION

How do Dutch heterosexual parents who achieved parenthood through donor conception navigate non-genetic parenthood and kinship?

DESIGN

A qualitative in-depth semi-structured interview study was performed between September 2018 and January 2019 with both partners of 13 Dutch heterosexual couples where the male partner suffered from infertility and who conceived a child with the help of a sperm donor. Interview questions were based on literature and clinical experiences of experts in the field of donor conception. Interviews were transcribed and analysed using thematic analysis.

RESULTS

All parents navigated non-genetic parenthood through 'doing' kinship: they negotiated the importance of nature versus nurture with regards to donor conception and non-genetic parenthood. Most parents perceived genetics as irrelevant for experiencing parenthood, bonding with their children and the preferred role of the donor in their future lives. Yet most of them found genetics relevant for generating similarities between the father and the child, and for wanting the same donor for all their children to ensure a full genetic relation among them. Additionally, based on the donor's genetic bond with the child, some men were anxious about the donor's role in the child's future life and the consequences for their position as a non-genetic father. A few women perceived genetics as relevant in terms of possible inherited illnesses from the donor.

CONCLUSIONS

Parents experienced several ambiguities regarding the role of genetics in donor conception and navigated 'doing' kinship in various ways. These aspects need to be taken into consideration during the counselling of prospective parents planning to conceive with donor conception.

Counselling challenges associated with donor conception and surrogacy treatments - time for debate

Fertility counselling services have had to respond to significant developments in fertility treatments in recent years, prompting increasingly complex personal and professional ethical challenges. This Commentary focuses on those rising from donor conception and/or surrogacy. The profile of those seeking such treatments has changed to include growing numbers of same sex couples, single people, people who are transitioning or have done, people seeking posthumous use of gametes, and people using cross-border services. Alongside, awareness has grown of life-span implications, the impact of commercial DNA testing, and the need for 'later-life' support. Responses vary internationally and the time for debate is overdue. Who should provide fertility counselling and how? Should specialist qualifications, training, continuing professional development, and regulation be required? Should counsellors play a role in assessing suitability to parents? What aspects of different contractual arrangements and conflicts of interest need attention? Has the time come for counselling to be mandatory as part of pre-treatment pathways? What should be the relationship between fertility counsellors and multi-disciplinary clinic teams? How might fertility counsellors be represented nationally and internationally? What should be their relationship to 'later life' professional support? What place should professional knowledge hold in the evidence base?

#mothersday: Constructions of motherhood and femininity in social media posts

Images and representations of parenting, and particularly mothering, have become commonplace on social media platforms over the past decade. These displays, however, take place in the context of popular contemporary discourses around gender and parenting that are in many ways prescriptive. This paper explores the constructions of mothering online through an analysis of posts about mothers on Mother’s Day from 2018 to 2020. Data were collected from Instagram and Twitter using hashtags such as #mothersday, #happymothersday and #motheringsunday. Both content and thematic analyses were conducted. This paper will consider three main themes that were identified in the data: “Beauty & biology”; “Grief & loss” and “Care (& COVID)”, with a focus on constructions of gendered parenting and family through the explicit celebration of the lives and roles of mothers. The findings provide insight into normative constructions of gender and how these are mediated through the affordances of social media platforms in a neoliberal context.

'Genes versus children': if the goal is parenthood, are we using the optimal approach?

First medical contact for couples trying for a child will usually emphasise the array of assistance available to ‘help them have their own child’, usually with options involving ART, after diagnosis. For many poorer prognosis couples, this means repetitive unsuccessful cycles of invasive and stressful treatment. What is sometimes lost at this stage is a reflection on the likelihood of success of different options, which may lead patients to focus on hoping for their own ‘genetic’ progeny, but failing to consider the alternative and potentially more successful other options, including donation and adoption, for achieving parenthood of a child. Factors not only such as female age but also advanced requirements such as preimplantation genetic testing or even mitochondrial replacement therapies all have reduced chances of success but further tend to reinforce the importance of a genetic link. The financial, physical and psychosocial burden associated with cumulative failure also lead to a higher probability of dropout and consequently an even higher probability of remaining in involuntary childlessness. We advocate formulation of a detailed roadmap for discussion of parenthood, with reference explanation to genetics and epigenetics, which gives due consideration to the psychological effects from the beginning to end of the treatment process, alongside a balanced consideration of the likelihood of treatment success and discussion of other options. Only when we provide patients with the service of a clear and transparent discussion of these matters, we will really realise the true potential of our field, which may then be better considered as assisted families.

Psychosocial aspects of identity-release gamete donation - perspectives of donors, recipients, and offspring

Donor conception creates families with varying genetic linkage between family members. This may have short-term as well as lifelong psychosocial consequences for all involved. Gamete donors have traditionally been anonymous to recipients and offspring, but there is a growing trend towards identity-release donor programmes that give offspring the right to obtain the donor's identity. This review aims to provide an overview of the perspectives of donors and recipients and offspring involved in identity-release donation. The results show that both oocyte and sperm donors have primarily altruistic motives, and recipients, in particular lesbian and single women, are generally open about the donation to their offspring. The few existing studies on offspring perspectives indicate that those who are aware of their donor conception appear to be interested in contact with the donor, and most donors are open to such contact. Investigations of donors and recipients indicate a need for more counselling and support to manage family life with varying genetic linkage within and outside the family unit. This includes preparing for and managing future contact between the donor and his/her family and donor offspring and their family, as well as between donor siblings and their respective families.