Donor conceived offspring conceive of the donor: The relevance of age, awareness, and family form

Are donor-conceived people willing to use donors themselves? Insights from individuals conceived via donor-assisted reproduction

STUDY QUESTION

Are donor-conceived people (DCP) willing to utilize donor gametes themselves if unable to conceive spontaneously?

SUMMARY ANSWER

The majority of DCP would consider or are undecided about utilizing donor gametes and those who would consider the utilization are more likely to have been told about their donor-conceived origins at a young age by a family member and have overall positive experiences as a DCP.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

DCP view their donor conception as an important part of their self-identity and many desire contact with genetically related individuals. Additionally, many believe that sperm donation should only be practiced if identifying information on the donor is provided.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

This was a cross-sectional study using a Web-based survey that was disseminated from 6 March to 15 August 2021. A total of 528 participants completed the questionnaire.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

The researcher-created survey was sent to registered users of the Donor Sibling Registry (DSR) who were conceived via donor-assisted reproduction and were 18 years of age or older. The survey was optional and anonymous, and the main outcome measure was the willingness to use donated gametes if unable to spontaneously conceive.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

Of the 528 participants who completed the survey, 40.2% (212/528) have or would consider using donor gametes themselves if unable to conceive spontaneously and 24.6% (130/528) were undecided. Those who had used or were undecided about the utilization were significantly younger (26 years vs. 31 years, P < 0.001) and less likely to be married (32.7% vs. 47.3%, P < 0.001) than those who would not consider using donor gametes. They were also less likely to self-identify as female (78.9% vs. 86.6%, P = 0.03) but had no difference in sexual orientation (P = 0.13). Additionally, they were more likely to have known about their donor-conceived origins for more years (18 (0-50) vs. 11 (0-61), P = 0.004), be informed by a family member (75.5% vs. 65.6%, P = 0.001) and have overall positive feelings about being conceived using a donor (93.0% vs. 52.5%, P < 0.001).

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

A major limitation is that DSR participants may not be representative of all DCP. Additionally, analyzing the DCP who stated that they were undecided about using donor gametes into the 'would consider' group may be overestimating the openness to utilization in this group.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

The findings from this study give new insight for health care workers to further counsel patients who are considering using third-party reproduction by providing reassurance that the majority of their future children would consider similar means, if needed, to achieve their family-building goals.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

Funding for this study was received from the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology Division of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility, University of Colorado. All authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest to disclose.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

N/A.

OUP accepted manuscript

STUDY QUESTION

What information and support should be offered to donors, intended parents and donor-conceived people, in general and in consideration of the availability of direct-to-consumer genetic testing and matching services?

SUMMARY ANSWER

For donors, intended parents and donor-conceived offspring, recommendations are made that cover information needs and informed consent, psychosocial implications and disclosure.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

Trends indicate that the use of donor-assisted conception is growing and guidance is needed to help these recipients/intended parents, the donors and offspring, navigate the rapidly changing environment in which donor-assisted conception takes place.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

A working group (WG) collaborated on writing recommendations based, where available, on evidence collected from a literature search and expert opinion. Draft recommendations were published for stakeholder review and adapted where relevant based on the comments received.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

Papers retrieved from PUBMED were included from 1 January 2014 up to 31 August 2020, focusing on studies published since direct-to-consumer genetic testing has become more widespread and accessible. The current paper is limited to reproductive donation performed in medically assisted reproduction (MAR) centres (and gamete banks): donation outside the medical context was not considered.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

In total, 32 recommendations were made for information provision and support to donors, 32 for intended parents and 27 for donor-conceived offspring requesting information/support.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

The available evidence in the area of reproductive donation is limited and diverse with regards to the context and types of donation. General conclusions and recommendations are largely based on expert opinion and may need to be adapted in light of future research.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

These recommendations provide guidance to MAR centres and gamete banks on good practice in information provision and support but should also be considered by regulatory bodies and policymakers at a national and international level to guide regulatory and legislative efforts towards the protection of donors and donor-conceived offspring.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

The development of this good practice paper was funded by European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE), covering expenses associated with the WG meetings, the literature searches and dissemination. The WG members did not receive any payment. The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

DISCLAIMER

This document represents the views of ESHRE, which are the result of consensus between the relevant ESHRE stakeholders and where relevant based on the scientific evidence available at the time of preparation.

The recommendations should be used for informational and educational purposes. They should not be interpreted as setting a standard of care, or be deemed inclusive of all proper methods of care nor exclusive of other methods of care reasonably directed to obtaining the same results. They do not replace the need for application of clinical judgement to each individual presentation, nor variations based on locality and facility type.

^†ESHRE pages content is not externally peer reviewed. The manuscript has been approved by the Executive Committee of ESHRE.

National survey of donor-conceived individuals who requested information about their sperm donor-experiences from 17 years of identity releases in Sweden

STUDY QUESTION

What characterizes the group of donor-conceived (DC) individuals who request information about their identity-release sperm donor in Sweden, and what are their experiences of disclosure, information receipt and donor contact?

SUMMARY ANSWER

Following three decades of identity-release donation in Sweden, few DC individuals have requested donor information with varying experiences of information receipt and donor contact.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

In 1985, Sweden was the first country worldwide to enact legislation that gave DC individuals the right to obtain identifying information about their donor. Since then, identity-release gamete donation has become available in many countries but there is limited knowledge about the individuals who request donor information.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

A nation-wide cross-sectional survey study was performed at all seven University hospitals that provided donation treatment in Sweden during 1985-2002. During this period only donor insemination to heterosexual couples was permitted. Inclusion criteria were being 18 years of age or older, conceived with donor sperm and having requested information about the donor by December 2020. Recruitment was performed during 2016-2020.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

A total of 60 individuals had requested information about their donor. Of these, 53 were approached and 40 individuals, representing 34 families, accepted study participation (75% response rate). Participants completed a postal survey with the WHO-10 well-being index and study-specific questions about experiences of disclosure, motivations for requesting donor information, receipt of information, as well as intentions and experiences of donor contact. Independent t-test and chi-square tests were used to compare ratings of participants with early and late disclosure.

MAIN RESULTS AND ROLE OF CHANCE

Of ∼900 DC individuals who had reached adult age, a total of 60 (≈7%) had requested information about the donor. Most of the 40 study participants (78%) made their requests within 2 years after reaching 18 years of age, or following disclosure at later ages (up to 32 years). Several participants had adult DC siblings in the family who had not requested any donor information. All except five participants received identifying information about the donor from the clinic. However, some donors had died or lacked contact information. Among those participants who were able to contact their donor, 41% had done so at the time of the study, while a third of the participants were unsure about potential contact. Several had met the donor in person and a few were in regular contact. About half of the participants had been informed about their donor conception in adolescence or adulthood (age 12-32), and there were significant differences between participants based on age at disclosure. Compared to those with early disclosure, participants with late disclosure were significantly more likely to be dissatisfied with the timing of their disclosure (P = 0.021), to react with negative emotions (P < 0.001), and to subsequently contact the donor (P = 0.047).

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

The limited population available for inclusion resulted in a small sample size, despite a high response rate. In addition, men's lower participation rate must be taken into consideration when interpreting the results.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

The small number of individuals requesting information about their identity-release sperm donor is surprising. While not all DC individuals appear to be interested in donor information, it is reasonable to assume that some are unaware of their donor conception and thus unable to make informed decisions regarding their genetic origins. During the coming years, young women and men in many countries will become eligible to access identifying information about their donor. In order to meet the needs of these individuals, and to support positive outcomes for all involved parties, it is essential that adequate protocols and resources are developed.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST

Financial support from The Swedish Research Council. There are no conflicts of interest to declare.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

N/A.

The March 2021 Italian constitutional court ruling on surrogacy: a prelude to common European legislation for the sake of reproductive health?

PURPOSE

Surrogacy is an arrangement by which a surrogate mother bears a child for another couple or person, and is often thought of as a form of 'treatment' for couples (or even individuals) with fertility or sterility issues. Still, surrogacy entails ethical issues related to gender, fundamental human rights, exploitation and inequality.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Starting from the Italian state of affairs, the authors have set out to briefly expound upon such complexities, taking into account relevant jurisprudence on the subject, with a particular focus on inter-country surrogacy and second-parent adoption, which can themselves engender significant legal dilemmas. When residents of countries where surrogacy is banned travel abroad and hire a surrogate, that may lead to considerable legal hurdles as well.

RESULTS

In Italy and elsewhere, the courts have all too often had to fill the vacuum left by the lack of targeted legislation. The Italian Constitutional Court has recently urged lawmakers to enact new legislation to uphold the minor's best interests. In fact, while some countries recognise the surrogate as the legal parent, others ascribe parenthood to the commissioning parents. That discrepancy can lead to a 'clash of laws', resulting in children ending up stateless and unable to maintain an already established family relationship.

CONCLUSIONS

Just like fundamental protection of human rights and public health, the regulation of revolutionary technologies that change the very notion of reproduction, parenthood, and human identity needs to be governed by uniform standards, shared at least by nations which espouse common core values.

The motivations of donor-conceived adults for seeking information about, and contact with, sperm donors

RESEARCH QUESTION

How do the demographic characteristics, mental health experiences and disclosure experiences of donor-conceived adults shape motivations for seeking information about their sperm donors, contact with them, or both?

DESIGN

Sixty-nine Australian adults who conceived through sperm donors completed an online survey. Uniquely, information and contact seeking were investigated as two distinct concepts.

RESULTS

Participants reported a variety of demographic, mental health, disclosure and discovery experiences. Most had been motivated to seek information about their donor (88%), contact with them (71%), or both. The most commonly reported motivations for each act were for medical information, expanding their identity and curiosity. Logistic regression findings were significant for wanting medical information as a motivation for seeking donor information (P = 0.03). Endorsement of this motivation was associated with self-reported anxiety (P = 0.02) and less likely as participant age increased (P = 0.02). Motivation to contact donors for medical information was associated with self-reported anxiety (P = 0.02) and depression (P = 0.01), and more likely when the participant was raised in a household that included the recipient co-parent (P = 0.04). As years since disclosure or discovery increased, participants were less likely to report wanting medical information as a motivation (P = 0.02).

CONCLUSION

Overall, participants were motivated to obtain information and seek contact with sperm donors. Motivations for each were similar despite participants varying in age and reporting a range of circumstances regarding disclosure, some of which were adverse.

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

Donor-conceived neonates have poorer birth outcomes, including low birth weight and preterm delivery that are associated with poorer long-term health in adulthood through the developmental origins of health and disease (DOHaD) theory. The aim of this study was to conduct the first investigation of the adult health outcomes of donor-conceived people. An online health survey was completed by 272 donor sperm-conceived adults and 877 spontaneously conceived adults from around the world. Donor and spontaneously conceived groups were matched for age, sex, height, smoking, alcohol consumption, exercise, own fertility and maternal smoking. Donor sperm-conceived adults had significantly higher reports of being diagnosed with type 1 diabetes (P = 0.031), thyroid disease (P = 0.031), acute bronchitis (P = 0.008), environmental allergies (P = 0.046), sleep apnoea (P = 0.037) and having ear tubes/grommets surgically implanted (P = 0.046). This is the first study to investigate the health outcomes of adult donor sperm-conceived people. Donor sperm-conceived adults self-reported elevated frequencies of various health conditions. The outcomes are consistent with birth defect data from donor sperm treatment and are consistent with the DOHaD linking perturbed early growth and chronic disease in adulthood.

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.

“Siempre le he contado su historia”: prácticas y narrativas familiares sobre “los orígenes” en adopciones monoparentales

Resumen Las familias “dependientes del discurso” (Galvin 2006), como son las adoptivas, se conforman mediante cuatro prácticas: nombrar (designar a los miembros de la familia dándoles un lugar en ella), discutir (hablar sobre la situación familiar), narrar (elaborar una historia de adopción para los hijos) y ritualizar (reconocer la adopción con celebraciones y actividades cotidianas). En este artículo, analizamos las tres primeras prácticas en familias adoptivas monoparentales españolas y chilenas. Entre los resultados más sobresalientes, se muestran en estas configuraciones adoptivas actitudes y prácticas de apertura comunicativa, que conllevan narrar tempranamente a los hijos las circunstancias que rodearon su adopción y hablarles de sus madres y padres de origen, realizando esfuerzos por desculpabilizar y empatizar con estas figuras, e incluso sumándolas como parte de sus familias extendidas desde una perspectiva de pluriparentalidad.

Applications to statutory donor registers in Victoria, Australia: information sought and expectations of contact

Knowledge of genetic origins is widely believed to have consequences for health, family belonging and personal identity. Donor linking is the process by which donors, recipient parents (RP) and donor-conceived people (DCP) gain access to identifying information about each other. This paper reports on the information and contact sought by donor-linking applicants to the central and voluntary registers in the state of Victoria, Australia, which has one of the most comprehensive donor-linking legislative frameworks in the world. Applicants to the Victorian registers complete a statement of reasons (SOR), a written document that is given to the subject of the application, outlining their reasons for applying and their short- and long-term goals. SOR written by applicants between 29 June 2015 and 28 February 2017 who had agreed to be recontacted for research were analysed. Forty-two of 93 eligible applicants took part (45%). All applications pertained to donor sperm. RP were the largest applicant group (n = 19) followed by DCP (n = 17) and donors (n = 6). All applicants wanted personal information and most expressed a desire for contact. Single mothers of young children used the registers more than any other parent group, indicating that family structure may influence application patterns. While it is apparent that all applicants are eager for information and some form of interpersonal contact, further research is needed on how the legal and policy landscape of different jurisdictions influences expectations, as well as what happens after parties are linked.

Being a donor-child: wishes for parental support, peer support and counseling

OBJECTIVES

We aimed at exploring the wishes of Dutch donor-conceived offspring for parental support, peer support and counseling and sought to contribute to the improvement of health care for all parties involved with assisted reproductive technologies.

METHODS

We held semi-structured in-depth interviews with 24 donor-conceived offspring (M_age = 26.9, range 17-41) born within father-mother, two-mother and single mother families. The majority of the donor offspring was conceived with semen of anonymous donors. All offspring were recruited by network organizations and snowball sampling. The interviews were fully transcribed and analyzed using the constant comparative method.

RESULTS

Donor-conceived offspring wished that their parents had talked openly about donor conception and had missed parental support. They wished that their parents would have received counseling before donor sperm treatment on how to talk with their children about donor conception in several stages of life. They valued the availability of peer contact to exchange stories with other donor-conceived offspring and would have liked assistance in getting access to trustworthy information about characteristics and identifying information of their donor. Donor-conceived offspring wished to know where to find specialist counseling when needed.

CONCLUSIONS

Peer support and counseling by professionals for donor-conceived offspring should be available for those who need it. The findings also support professional counseling for intended parents before treatment to improve parental support for donor-children.

The perspectives of adolescents conceived using surrogacy, egg or sperm donation

STUDY QUESTION

What are the perspectives of adolescents conceived using surrogacy, egg or sperm donation regarding their conception and the third party involved?

SUMMARY ANSWER

The majority of adolescents described feeling indifferent about their conception, and yet simultaneously reported an interest in the third party involved, or were in contact with them.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

There is an assumption that children conceived through reproductive donation will feel negatively about their origins in adolescence. However, little is known about the views of adolescents who have been conceived through different types of reproductive donation.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

Forty-four adolescents, all of whom had been told about their conception in childhood, participated in a semi-structured interview as part of the sixth phase of a longitudinal, multi-method, multi-informant study of assisted reproduction families in the UK.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

All adolescents were aged 14 years, had been conceived using surrogacy (n = 22), egg donation (n = 13) or sperm donation (n = 9) to heterosexual couples, and varied in terms of their information about, and contact with, the third party involved in their conception. Semi-structured interviews were conducted in participants' homes. Interviews were analysed qualitatively to determine adolescents' perceptions of their conception, and their thoughts and feelings about the surrogate or donor involved.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

Adolescents were found to feel positive (n = 7), indifferent (n = 32) or ambivalent (n = 5) about their conception. Amongst adolescents not in contact with the surrogate or donor, most were interested (n = 16) in the surrogate or donor, and others were ambivalent (n = 4), or not interested (n = 6) in them. Adolescents in contact with the surrogate or donor expressed positive (n = 14), ambivalent (n = 1) or negative (n = 1) feelings about them.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

Of 56 adolescents invited to take part in the study, 47 consented to take part, giving a response rate of 84%. It was not possible to obtain information from adolescents who do not know about their conception.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

The findings contradict the assumption that children conceived through reproductive donation will feel negatively about their origins in adolescence and suggest that it may be helpful to draw a distinction between adolescents' feelings about their conception in general, and their feelings about the surrogate or donor in particular.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

This study was funded by the Wellcome Trust [097857/Z/11/Z]. The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

'Is blood thicker than water?' Donor conceived offspring's subjective experiences of the donor: a systematic narrative review

The aim of this study was to provide a systematic narrative review of the published research articles on donor conceived offspring's subjective experiences of their donor. A systematic search of electronic databases (PsycINFO and PubMed) provided 29 published quantitative and qualitative studies matching the inclusion criteria. The analysis of the studies outcomes led to the identification of four main themes: (i) views/representations of the donor; (ii) desire to contact the donor (in terms of desire to meet the donor, reasons for wanting to contact the donor, type and frequency of contact); (iii) reactions to discovering the donor's identity and contacting the donor; (iv) identity issues. The findings revealed that genetic ties do matter to donor conceived people, especially during adolescence or adulthood. Many donor conceived people were interested in contacting the donor and all of them needed to make meaning of the role of the donor, as well as to integrate it into their family life and self-concept. Besides curiosity and medical reasons, many people reported wanting to contact the donor to see what he/she looked like, and to have access to their own ancestry and genetic history.

"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.

Sperm donor regulation and disclosure intentions: Results from a nationwide multi-centre study in France

Gamete donation in Europe is not regulated by a common legal framework. Different laws regarding donor anonymity and remuneration exist in different countries. In France, gamete donation is characterized by a stable legal framework - the existing system of anonymous and non-remunerated donation remained unchanged following a period of public and parliamentary debate in 2011 - but little evidence is available concerning recipients' views and experiences of gamete donation. This article describes findings from a questionnaire completed individually by 714 heterosexual couple members undergoing a donor conception procedure at one of 20 national fertility centres in France. Participants were invited to report their attitudes towards the French legal framework, their perceptions of the anonymous donor, and their intentions to disclose donor conception to their child and to other people. The majority of respondents (93%) approved of the current legal framework. Participants indicated that they thought about the sperm donor in ways that emphasized his act of donation without describing him as a specific individual. A majority (71%) also stated that they intended to tell their child about their donor conception. Given that this is the largest nationwide study of French recipients of donor sperm, the findings make an important contribution to the research evidence currently available about prospective parents' perspectives in the increasingly uncommon context of donor anonymity in Europe.

Counsellors' practices in donor sperm treatment

When intended parents choose to have donor sperm treatment (DST), this may entail wide-ranging and long-lasting psychosocial implications related to the social parent not having a genetic tie with the child, how to disclose donor-conception and future donor contact. Counselling by qualified professionals is recommended to help intended parents cope with these implications. The objective of this study is to present findings and insights about how counsellors execute their counselling practices. We performed a qualitative study that included 13 counsellors working in the 11 clinics offering DST in the Netherlands. We held a focus group discussion and individual face-to-face semi-structured interviews, which were fully transcribed and analysed using thematic analysis. The counsellors combined screening for eligibility and guidance within one session. They acted according to their individual knowledge and clinical experience and had different opinions on the issues they discussed with intended parents, which resulted in large practice variations. The counsellors were dependent on the admission policies of the clinics, which were mainly limited to regulating access to psychosocial counselling, which also lead to a variety of counselling practices. This means that evidence-based guidelines on counselling in DST need to be developed to provide consistent counselling with less practice variation.

'What Does Donor Mean to a Four-Year-Old?': Initial Insights into Young Children's Perspectives in Solo Mother Families

This study reports on the questions, thoughts and feelings of children aged 4-9 conceived by donor insemination to single mothers. Fifty-one mothers and 47 children from the same families were each administered a semi-structured interview. Mothers generally reported that while children either lack understanding, or have not yet been told, about their donor conception, they may be thinking and talking about the absence of a father. Most children did not mention either donor conception or father absence and reported positive feelings about their families and friendships. Possible explanations for the discrepancy between mothers' and children's reports are discussed.

Children's thoughts and feelings about their donor and security of attachment to their solo mothers in middle childhood

STUDY QUESTION

What is the relationship between children's thoughts and feelings about their donor and their security of attachment to their solo mothers in middle childhood?

SUMMARY ANSWER

Children with higher levels of secure–autonomous attachment to their mothers were more likely to have positive perceptions of the donor, and those with higher levels of insecure–disorganized attachment to their mothers were more likely to perceive him negatively.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

There is limited understanding of the factors that contribute to children's thoughts and feelings about their donor in solo mother families. In adolescence, an association was found between adolescents’ curiosity about donor conception and their security of attachment to their mothers.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

19 children were administered the Friends and Family Interview and Donor Conception Interview between December 2015 and March 2016 as part of the second phase of a longitudinal, multi-method, multi-informant study of solo mother families.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

All children were aged between 7 and 13 years and had been conceived by donor insemination to solo mothers. Interviews were conducted in participants’ homes. The Friends and Family Interview was rated according to a standardized coding scheme designed to measure security of attachment in terms of secure–autonomous, insecure–dismissing, insecure–preoccupied and insecure–disorganized attachment patterns. Quantitative analyses of the Donor Conception Interview yielded two factors: interest in the donor and perceptions of the donor. Qualitative analyses of the Donor Conception Interview were conducted using qualitative content analysis and thematic analysis.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

Statistically significant associations were found between the perception of the donor scale and the secure–autonomous and insecure–disorganized attachment ratings. Children with higher levels of secure–autonomous attachment to their mothers were more likely to have positive perceptions of the donor (r = 0.549, P = 0.015), and those with higher levels of insecure–disorganized attachment to their mothers were more likely to perceive him negatively (r = −0.632, P = 0.004). Children's narratives about the donor depicted him as a stranger (n = 8), a biological father (n = 4), a social parent (n = 3), or in ambivalent terms (n = 4).

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

Findings are limited by the wide age range of children within a small overall sample size. Participants were those willing and able to take part in research on donor conception families. The statistical significance of correlation coefficients was not corrected for multiple comparisons.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

Findings highlight the importance of situating children's ideas about the donor within family contexts. It is recommended that those working with donor conception families consider this when advising parents about whether, what and how to tell children about donor conception.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

This study was funded by the Wellcome Trust [097857/Z/11/Z]. The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Disclosure of donor conception in the era of non-anonymity: safeguarding and promoting the interests of donor-conceived individuals?

This article responds to a debate article published in Human Reproduction earlier this year. In that article, the authors suggested that parents should be encouraged to disclose the use of donor gametes to their children given rapid and widespread advances in genetic testing and sequencing. However, there is an urgent need to engage with the assertion that in this context, telling children about their donor conception both safeguards and promotes their interests, particularly if such disclosure is motivated by parents' anxieties about accidental discovery. Disclosure that is motivated by the notion of non-anonymity may also encourage parents to share misinformation about donors and encourage their children to have unrealistic expectations. Fertility professionals must remain mindful of these outcomes when discussing disclosure and the future implications of increasing access to genetic information with both prospective and current parents. It is strongly advised that future discussions about the end of donor anonymity are not conflated with the debate on disclosure.

Donor Conception Disclosure: Directive or Non-Directive Counselling?

It is widely agreed among health professionals that couples using donor insemination should be offered counselling on the topic of donor conception disclosure. However, it is clear from the literature that there has long been a lack of agreement about which counselling approach should be used in this case: a directive or a non-directive approach. In this paper we investigate which approach is ethically justifiable by balancing the two underlying principles of autonomy (non-directive approach) and beneficence (directive approach). To overrule one principle in favour of another, six conditions should be fulfilled. We analyse the arguments in favour of the beneficence principle, and consequently, a directive approach. This analysis shows that two conditions are not met; the principle of autonomy should not be overridden. Therefore, at this moment, a directive counselling approach on donor conception disclosure cannot be ethically justified.

Emerging models for facilitating contact between people genetically related through donor conception: a preliminary analysis and discussion

Previous research indicates interest among some donor-conceived people, donors and recipient parents in having contact. Outcomes of such contact appear largely, but not universally, positive. This paper seeks to understand better the characteristics of associated support services. Information gathered using the authors' direct experiences and professional and personal networks in different parts of the world indicates the emergence of four main groupings: (i) publically funded services outside of treatment centers; (ii) services provided by fertility treatment or gamete bank services; (iii) services provided privately by independent psychosocial or legal practitioners; and (4) services organized by offspring and/or recipient parents. Key operational features examined were: (i) who can access such services and when; (ii) what professional standards and funding are in place to provide them; and (iii) how 'matching' and contact processes are managed. Differences appear influenced variously by the needs of those directly affected, local policies, national legislation and the interests of the fertility services which recruit gamete donors and/or deliver donor conception treatments. The paper is intended to inform fuller debate about how best to meet the needs of those seeking information and contact, the implications for the way that fertility treatment and gametes donation services are currently provided and future research needs.

Open-Identity Sperm Donation: How Does Offering Donor-Identifying Information Relate to Donor-Conceived Offspring's Wishes and Needs?

Over the past years, a growing number of countries have legislated open-identity donation, in which donor-conceived offspring are given access to the donor's identity once the child has reached maturity. It is held that donor anonymity creates identity problems for such children similar to the "genealogical bewilderment" described within the adoption context. The study of the social and psychological effects of open-identity donation is still very much in its infancy, but what has been left unquestioned is whether (and to what extent) offering access to the donor's name and address is an adequate response to such effects. This study has two goals: First, we aim to provide a systematic review of the reasons why donor-conceived (DC) offspring want to know the identity of their sperm donor. Second, we examine to what extent the provision of donor-identifying information can satisfy the reasons mentioned. The most important motivations appear to be: (1) to avoid medical risks and consanguineous relationships; (2) to satisfy curiosity; (3) to learn more about the self or to complete one's identity; (4) to learn more about what kind of person the donor is (biographical information, why he donated, etc.); (5) to form a relationship with the donor and/or his family; and (6) to learn about one's ancestry/genealogy. Our analysis shows that for nearly all of these reasons access to the donor's identity is not necessary. In those cases where it is, moreover, donor identification is not sufficient. What is really needed is (extended) contact with the donor, rather than the mere provision of his name.

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.