Positioning the donor in a new landscape-mothers' and fathers' experiences as their adult children obtained information about the identity-release sperm donor

Psychological well-being and family functioning following identity-release gamete donation or standard IVF: follow-up of parents with adolescent children

This study sought to investigate if heterosexual-couple parents with adolescent children following identity-release oocyte donation (OD), sperm donation (SD) or standard IVF differed with regard to psychological distress, family functioning, and parent-child relationships. The prospective longitudinal Swedish Study on Gamete Donation consists of couples recruited when starting treatment between 2005 and 2008 from seven Swedish university hospitals providing gamete donation. This study concerns the fifth wave of data collection and included a total of 205 mothers and fathers with adolescent children following OD (n = 73), SD (n = 67), or IVF with own gametes (n = 65). OD/SD parents had used identity-release donation and most had disclosed the donor conception to their child. Parents answered validated instruments measuring symptoms of anxiety and depression (HADS), family functioning (GF6+) and parent-child relationship. Results found that parents following OD or SD did not differ significantly from IVF-parents with regard to symptoms of anxiety and depression, family functioning, and perceived closeness and conflicts with their child. Irrespective of treatment group, most parents were within normal range on psychological distress and family functioning and reported positive parent-child relationships. However, SD mothers to a larger extent reported anxiety symptoms above cut-off compared to OD mothers (31% vs. 7.3%, p = 0.018). In conclusion, the present results add to previous research by including families with adolescent children following identity-release oocyte and sperm donation, most of whom were aware of their donor conception. Largely, our results confirm that the use of gamete donation does not interfere negatively with mothers' and fathers' psychological well-being and perceived family functioning.

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.

The moral obligation to have genetically related children

Donor conceived persons are likely to have a lower quality of life than persons who are genetically related to both parents. Empirical evidence is presented to corroborate this point. The evidence is subdivided into three sections: (1) negative experience of the donor conception itself, (2) negative effects of secrecy and openness and (3) negative effects of donor anonymity and donor identifiability. The principle of procreative beneficence requires parents to select the child with the best possible life. Given the difference in quality of life, intended parents should try to have a genetically related child. This finding is also a strong reason for society to invest public resources in the development of techniques that enable people to create genetically related children.

Lowering the age limit of access to the identity of the gamete donor by donor offspring: the argument against

Countries that abolished donor anonymity have imposed age limits for access to certain types of information by donor offspring. In the UK and the Netherlands, a debate has started on whether these age limits should be lowered or abolished all together. This article presents some arguments against lowering the age limits as a general rule for all donor children. The focus is on whether one should give a child the right to obtain the identity of the donor at an earlier age than is presently stipulated. The first argument is that there is no evidence that a change in age will increase the total well-being of the donor offspring as a group. The second argument stresses that the rights language used for the donor-conceived child isolates the child from his or her family and this is unlikely to be in the best interest of the child. Finally, lowering the age limit reintroduces the genetic father in the family and expresses the bionormative ideology that contradicts gamete donation as a practice.

The motives and experiences of donor-conceived persons requesting the identity of their sperm donors

RESEARCH QUESTION

What are the motives and experiences of donor-conceived persons (DCP) who search for and receive information about their identity-release sperm donor?

DESIGN

A qualitative interview study with 29 individuals (21 women, seven men, one non-binary) who were consecutively recruited after having requested information about their sperm donor at five Swedish University hospitals. All participants were conceived after donor insemination to heterosexual couples within an identity-release donation programme. Individual semi-structured interviews were conducted face-to-face or via telephone between September 2016 and November 2019, and transcribed audio recordings were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis.

RESULTS

The motives and experiences of DCP were described in two themes. The theme 'donor information can fill different needs' describes that varying motives, thoughts and feelings are related to searching for and obtaining donor information. Motives ranged from curiosity and a desire for agency over one's conception to hopes of finding a new father. The theme 'navigating donor information in a relational context' describes the process of obtaining donor information as interpersonal, highlighting that the DCP needs to balance the interests of different stakeholders, and that obtaining donor information can challenge the relationship quality with the father.

CONCLUSIONS

Obtaining the donor's identity has the potential to affect the understanding of DCP of themselves, and to influence relationships within their family in unexpected and challenging ways. Therefore, adequate resources should be allocated to support the growing number of families after identity-release donation.

Families created via identity-release egg donation: disclosure and an exploration of donor threat in early childhood

RESEARCH QUESTION

What are mothers' disclosure intentions and practices from infancy to early childhood, and is perceived donor threat associated with disclosure in identity-release egg donation families when the children are aged 5 years?

DESIGN

This longitudinal study included 73 heterosexual-couple families with infants born following IVF-egg donation at phase one, and 61 families with 5-year-old children at phase two. At both phases, mothers were interviewed about their disclosure intentions and practices. At phase two, mothers were interviewed about their feelings about future donor-child contact.

RESULTS

Most mothers (75.3%) intended to disclose their use of egg donation to their children at phase one; half had begun to do so when their children were aged 5. Most remaining mothers planned to tell, although a minority were uncertain or planned not to disclose. When the child was aged 5, four mothers had started telling them that they could access their donor's identifying information at age 18, and most (84%) intended to do so in the future. Most couples agreed on a disclosure strategy at phase two. Most mothers perceived at least some threat from future donor-child contact, but this was unrelated to their disclosure practices.

CONCLUSIONS

Disclosure intentions in infancy are borne out in early childhood. Despite perceiving some threat from future donor-child contact, most mothers intended telling their child that they could access the donor's identifying information at age 18. Revisiting these families as the children grow older will be important to understand how the mothers' perceived donor threat may change over time, and how this is related to family processes.

Donor insemination for heterosexual couples: A practice in transition

Donor insemination (DI) has long been the treatment of choice for severe male infertility among heterosexual couples. Since disclosing when offspring become adults provokes serious emotional issues, counselors are recommending early disclosure about the treatment. Furthermore, several countries have changed their policies on nonanonymous sperm donation, concerning the strong demand of donor information from the offspring. There is a need for more research in psychosocial areas concerning DI treatment: especially to look at parents' roles (especially for infertile father) and their attitudes toward the need to use a donor to build their family.

Development of the Tool to Empower Parental Telling and Talking (TELL Tool): A digital decision aid intervention about children's origins from donated gametes or embryos

Objective

This study aimed to create and develop a well-designed, theoretically driven, evidence-based, digital, decision Tool to Empower Parental Telling and Talking (TELL Tool) prototype.

Methods

This developmental study used an inclusive, systematic, and iterative process to formulate a prototype TELL Tool: the first digital decision aid for parents who have children 1 to 16 years of age and used donated gametes or embryos to establish their families. Recommendations from the International Patient Decision Aids Standards Collaboration and from experts in decision aid development, digital health interventions, design thinking, and instructional design guided the process.

Results

The extensive developmental process incorporated researchers, clinicians, parents, children, and other stakeholders, including donor-conceived adults. We determined the scope and target audience of the decision aid and formed a steering group. During design work, we used the decision-making process model as the guiding framework for selecting content. Parents' views and decisional needs were incorporated into the prototype through empirical research and review, appraisal, and synthesis of the literature. Clinicians' perspectives and insights were also incorporated. We used the experiential learning theory to guide the delivery of the content through a digital distribution plan. Following creation of initial content, including storyboards and scripts, an early prototype was redrafted and redesigned based on feedback from the steering group. A final TELL Tool prototype was then developed for alpha testing.

Conclusions

Detailing our early developmental processes provides transparency that can benefit the donor-conceived community as well as clinicians and researchers, especially those designing digital decision aids. Future research to evaluate the efficacy of the TELL Tool is planned.

Same-sex mothers' experiences of equal treatment, parenting stress and disclosure to offspring: a population-based study of parenthood following identity-release sperm donation

STUDY QUESTION

What are the experiences of same-sex mothers following identity-release sperm donation regarding equal treatment in society, parenting stress and disclosure to child?

SUMMARY ANSWER

Mothers predominantly reported equal treatment in society, low levels of parenting stress and early disclosure of the donor conception to the child, and half of the couples had also informed the child of his/her right to obtain the donor’s identity.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

The number of two-mother families is increasing, and previous studies have reported about challenges related to heteronormativity, discrimination and the status of the non-birth mother. Same-sex mothers have been found to disclose the child’s donor conception earlier than different-sex parents, but little is known regarding disclosure of the child’s right to obtain identifying information about the donor.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

The present study concerns the fourth wave of data collection of a nation-wide longitudinal study. A total of 143 same-sex mothers (73% response rate) following identity-release sperm donation completed individual surveys when their donor-conceived child had reached age 7. These women represent a total of 82 couples who had undergone sperm donation treatment.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

The study is part of the longitudinal Swedish Study on Gamete Donation (SSGD). Couples accepted for gamete donation treatment at seven Swedish University hospitals were recruited between 2005 and 2008 and were requested to complete postal surveys during four waves of data collection. The present study sample includes same-sex mothers who completed a survey when their donor-conceived child had reached 7 years of age. Data were collected with the Swedish Parenting Stress Questionnaire (SPSQ), and study-specific items on experiences of treatment in society and disclosure behavior. Group comparisons (birth mothers vs non-birth mothers) were conducted using Chi²-tests, independent t-tests and Mann–Whitney U-tests, and written comments provided for open-response items were analyzed by qualitative content analysis.

MAIN RESULTS AND ROLE OF CHANCE

The mothers were generally open about the child’s donor conception and the large majority (>80%) reported being treated positively and in the same way as other parents. However, satisfaction with treatment in health care settings was significantly lower than that reported in contacts with the child’s school and recreational activities (P < 0.001) and open-response comments indicate that this may be related predominantly to heteronormative language and assumptions. Birth mothers and non-birth mothers reported similar treatment in society and similar levels of parenting stress. All but one couple had already talked with their 7-year-old child about his/her conception with donor sperm. Half of the couples had also informed the child about his/her opportunity to obtain identifying information about the donor, and remaining couples planned later disclosure. Children’s reactions were generally described as neutral, positive or characterized by interest and curiosity.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

The present study was performed within the context of the Swedish legislation on identity-release donation, which limits the generalizability to same-sex couples using anonymous or known sperm donors. Although no evidence of attrition bias was found, it is possible that those couples who initially declined participation in the SSGD (23%) or dropped out at the fourth wave of data collection (27%) differ from the study sample in terms of variables that we were unable to control for.

WIDER IMPLICATION OF THE FINDINGS

The present finding that most same-sex mothers in a population-based sample experience equal treatment in society is encouraging and validates previous results from predominantly qualitative studies. Nevertheless, the fact that a subgroup experiences discrimination and less favorable treatment indicates that further action is needed, particularly in child health care settings. The present study is the first to report on the timing of parents’ disclosure of the child’s right to identifying donor information and suggests that disclosure during preschool ages is feasible and does not appear to be related to negative consequences. In view of the increased availability and use of identity-release donation, there is a pressing need to investigate parents’ intentions, behaviors and needs with regard to talking with their child about his/her opportunity to obtain the donor’s identity.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

Financial support from the Swedish Research Council (2013-2712) and the Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life and Welfare (2014-00876). There are no conflicts of interest to declare.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

N/A.

The impact of the method of genetic identity disclosure on the donor conceived adult

Aim: 106 donor conceived people (DCP) responded to an anonymous survey study that examined the impact of the method of genetic identity disclosure and age at the time of the disclosure on their emotional wellbeing, familial relations, and perceptions of donor conception practices.Methods: Participants were asked to select the way in which they were informed they are DCP and the age group at which this occurred, and then were asked to select strongly agree, agree, neither agree or disagree, disagree, or strongly disagree in response to 26 statements that examined their perceptions of the topics listed above. Responses were grouped based on the age of genetic identity disclosure and the method of genetic identity disclosure, then numerically compared by assigning each type of response a number. Statistical analysis using repeatedmeasures ANOVA was performed to identify differences among these factors.Results: This analysis revealed that most participants 18 ≥ years and most participants who discovered their genetic identity through means other than through their parent(s) had worse emotional wellbeing and familial relations. However, most participants among all categories had a negative perception of donor conception practices.Conclusion: Continued work is needed to understand and support the growing DCP population.

'I'm the only mum she knows': parents' understanding of, and feelings about, identity-release egg donation

STUDY QUESTION

How do parents understand and feel about identity-release egg donation?

SUMMARY ANSWER

Almost one-third of mothers and fathers did not understand the identifiable nature of their egg donation; mothers expressed complex and sometimes difficult feelings about the prospect of future donor–child contact.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

Identity-release egg donation has been the only treatment option available to patients wishing to pursue this route to parenthood in the UK since 2005. However, little is known about how well parents understand this legislation, and how they feel about potential donor–child contact.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

This qualitative interview study included 61 mothers and 51 fathers whose 5-year-old children were conceived via identity-release egg donation. Interviews were conducted between April 2018 and December 2019.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

Data are reported from phase two of a longitudinal study of families created using open-identity egg donation. In-depth, semi-structured interviews were conducted with mothers and fathers. The interviews contained a section on what parents understood about the identifiable nature of the donor. These data were analysed using qualitative content analysis. Mothers who understood the identifiable nature of their egg donation (n = 44) were then asked about their thoughts and feelings regarding the prospect of future donor–child contact. Mothers’ narratives were analysed using thematic analysis.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

Almost one-third of parents (28% of mothers, n = 17; 31% of fathers, n = 16) did not understand the identifiable nature of their egg donation. Mothers’ and fathers’ misunderstandings about identity-release egg donation fell into two categories: (i) Unclear about identity-release and (ii) Belief that the donor is anonymous. Reflexive thematic analysis revealed that egg donation mothers’ feelings about identity-release donation could be understood via three organizing themes: (i) identity-release as a threat, (ii) acceptance: it is what it is and (iii) embracing identity-release. The findings indicated that egg donation mothers utilized various strategies to manage their feelings about identity-release egg donation in day-to-day life, and each theme was associated with at least one coping strategy.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

Participants were predominantly from White, middle-class backgrounds. Further research with a more diverse sample is needed to improve generalizability.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

These findings indicate that parents would benefit from more comprehensive provision of information, both at time of treatment and following conception, to ensure they have fully understood the nature of the donation. Parents may also benefit from follow-up care to help manage any complex or difficult feelings about donor–child contact.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(s)

This research was supported by a Wellcome Trust Collaborative Award [208013/Z/17/Z]. The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

N/A.

Shifting to a model of donor conception that entails a communication agreement among the parents, donor, and offspring

Background

Some persons conceived with donor gametes react negatively when they found their birth via donor conception. They request access to information about and seek to communicate with the donor. However, some countries mandate donor anonymity. Other countries allow donor-conceived persons to access donor information, but they can only use this access if their parents have disclosed donor conception to them. We investigated a thorny issue of donor conception: whether donor conception should be shifted from an anonymous basis to a non-anonymous basis.

Methods

We review the issues and concerns regarding donor conception. We then consider the impact of direct-to-consumer genetic testing on donor conception, as well as the influence of donor conception on offspring’s identity and the potential of different types of donors. To discuss the future policy of donor conception, the policies on the anonymity of gamete donors were investigated using publicly-available documents in 15 countries.

Results

The aim of mandating donor anonymity is to protect the privacy of the donor and intended parents. However, the diffusion of direct-to-consumer genetic testing may make it impossible to maintain anonymity. Birth via donor conception shapes the offspring’s identity, and the donor may further influence the development of offspring’s identity through communications. It remains important to disclose donor conception to donor-conceived offspring and to provide them with donor information. However, that information might be insufficient for some donor-conceived persons. Here are benefits to having open-identity donors and known donors. Such donors can make an agreement with the parents regarding future communication with the offspring, although both sides should respect privacy. Subsequent counseling for all parties involved can result in better tripartite communication agreements.

Conclusions

In sum, ethical and practical issues that complicate donor anonymity are driving a shift to non-anonymous donor conception, in which all parties come to a communication agreement. To pave the way for such a donor conception system, transitional measures can be put into place. For countries that already adopted non-anonymous donor conception, ensuring the communication agreements is important to protect the rights of parents, donor, and offspring.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12910-022-00756-1.

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.