"I want us to be a normal family": Toward an understanding of the functions of anonymity among U.S. oocyte donors and recipients

Parents' disclosure to their donor-conceived children in the last 10 years and factors affecting disclosure: a narrative review

BACKGROUND

Disclosure of donor conception has been advocated in several jurisdictions in recent years, especially in those that practice identity-release donation. However, research on disclosure decisions has not been consolidated systematically in the last 10 years to review if parents are telling and what factors may be impacting their decisions.

OBJECTIVE AND RATIONALE

Are parents disclosing to their donor-conceived children, and what factors have influenced their disclosure decisions across different contexts and family forms in the last 10 years?

SEARCH METHODS

A bibliographic search of English-language, peer-reviewed journal articles published between 2012 and 2022 from seven databases was undertaken. References cited in included articles were manually scrutinized to identify additional references and references that cited the included articles were also manually searched. Inclusion criteria were articles focused on parents (including heterosexual, single mothers by choice, same-sex couples, and transsexual) of donor-conceived persons in both jurisdictions with or without identity-release provisions. Studies focused solely on surrogacy, donors, donor-conceived persons, or medical/fertility staff were excluded as were studies where it was not possible to extract donor-recipient parents' data separately. Both quantitative and qualitative studies were included. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines were followed and Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Tools for Systematic Reviews were used to assess article quality and bias.

OUTCOMES

Thirty-seven articles met the inclusion criteria representing 34 studies and 4248 parents (including heterosexual, single, same-sex, and transsexual parents although the majority were heterosexual) from countries with anonymous donation and those with identity-release provisions or who had subsequently enacted these provisions (Australia, Belgium, Finland, France, Hong Kong, Middle East, Spain, Sweden, the UK, and the USA) A general trend towards disclosure was noted across these groups of parents with most disclosing to their donor-conceived children before the age of 10 years. Further, the majority of those who had not yet told, reported planning to disclose, although delayed decisions were also associated with lower disclosure overall. Same-sex and single parents were more likely to disclose than heterosexual parents. There was recognition of disclosure as a process involving ongoing conversations and that decisions were impacted by multiple interacting intrapersonal, interpersonal, and external contextual and social factors. Methodological limitations, such as the different population groups and contexts from which participants were drawn (including that those parents who choose not to disclose may be less likely to participate in research), are acknowledged in integrating findings.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS

This review has reinforced the need for a theoretical model to explain parents' disclosure decisions and research exploring the role of legislative provisions, culture, and donor/family type in decision-making. Greater ongoing access to psychological support around disclosure may be important to promote parent and family well-being.

University students' opinion on gamete donor identification regimes

PURPOSE

This study aims to evaluate the opinion of university students about the identification or nonidentification of gamete donation and the probability of donation according to the different regimes.

METHODS

This was a cross-sectional observational study based on an online anonymous survey including questions about sociodemographic data, reasons for considering donations, information about the donation process and legislation, and their opinions about the different regimes and how they would influence donations.

RESULTS

In total, 1393 valid responses were obtained, with a mean age of 24.0 years (SD = 4.8), most of the respondents being female (68.5%), living in a relationship (56.7%), and without children (88.4%). The main reasons for considering donation would be altruism and monetary compensation. Overall, it was found that participants were poorly informed about the donation procedure and legislation. Students revealed preference for nonidentified donation, and they were less likely to donate in an open identity regime.

CONCLUSION

Most university students consider themselves poorly informed about gamete donation, express a preference for nonidentified gamete donation, and would less likely donate on an open identity basis. Thus, an identified regime may be less attractive to potential donors and lead to a decrease in the availability of gamete donors.

A Systematic Review of Qualitative Studies Investigating Motives and Experiences of Recipients of Anonymous Gamete Donation

The decision to use an anonymous gamete donation in fertility treatment could have significant long-term psychological and social effects for all stakeholders involved. In light of the growing recognition of donor-conceived children's right to know their genetic parentage, this entails profound ethical implications. This review aims to carve out the full spectrum of recipients' motives and experiences related to donor anonymity which could serve as an analytical framework for future ethical and sociological research on issues of donor anonymity. This review was conducted following a seven-step approach for systematic reviews of empirical bioethics literature. The characteristics and quality of the studies included in this review were reported. Data analysis was conducted using qualitative content analysis and was informed by sociological functionalist theorizations of ignorance. The 53 studies selected showed a diverse spectrum of characteristics concerning date and country of study, methodology, family type of participants, sample size, and the timing of data collection in relation to the stage of treatment. A total of 22 categories of motives and experiences of recipients concerning donor anonymity were identified inductively and grouped into five main categories. Donor anonymity was identified as a eufunctional form of ignorance, by which the recipients experienced or intended to control, regulate, or protect inter-stakeholder relations. Interpreting recipients' motives and experiences concerning donor anonymity as a form of ignorance directed toward particular stakeholders helps reframe the discourse on donor anonymity. It is a fruitful approach that can be refined further and applied in future research. This review identified possible directions for future investigations on motives for donor anonymity: the need for more thorough inquiries into the change in recipients' preferences over time, such as in the form of longitudinal studies and research on the perspective of non-biological parents.

Views of French oocyte donors at least 3 years after donation

RESEARCH QUESTION

The study aimed to evaluate the percentage of oocyte donors who regretted their donation at least 3 years later.

DESIGN

Between December 2018 and January 2019, this single-centre study sought to contact by telephone all women who had donated oocytes during the 6-year period from 2010 to 2015 at the Lille Centre for the study and storage of eggs and spermatozoa (CECOS).

RESULTS

Among 118 women, 72 responded to the questionnaire by telephone and were included in the study. The response rate was 61%. No woman regretted having donated an oocyte, and 89% said that they would do it again in the same situation. The survey distinguished two types of donors: 'relational' (58%) and 'altruistic' (42%); some of their responses differed. Ninety per cent of the women had talked about the donation to family and friends. Among them, 74% felt supported by their family and friends, and 72% by their partner. The donation was something that 76% of the women sometimes thought about; 83% felt that this donation was something useful that they had accomplished. Finally, most donors felt that oocyte donation should remain unremunerated and anonymous.

CONCLUSIONS

None of the donors we interviewed regretted their donation. In France, the current principles governing this donation appear satisfactory to oocyte donors.