Sperm and oocyte donors' experiences of anonymous donation and subsequent contact with their donor offspring

Donor-linking provisions in New Zealand: counselling roles, concerns and needs

Donor-linking where those genetically related through donor conception (e.g. donor-conceived persons (DCP), donors and siblings), or recipient parents, search for and connect with each other, is increasingly common, both in identity-release jurisdictions where donors' identifying information may be released to DCP, usually when they become adults - and in anonymous jurisdictions, e.g. as a result of direct-to-consumer DNA testing. In this paper, we explore New Zealand fertility clinic counsellors' views regarding their donor-linking roles and their concerns and needs in relation to current and anticipated service provision. Counsellors believed that fertility service providers had a longer-term responsibility to offer donor-linking services to ensure the wellbeing of all parties affected by donor conception. They perceived their role as complex and multifaceted, encompassing psychoeducation, mediation, advocacy, facilitation, relationship counselling, and therapeutic intervention. They identified significant service provision challenges however, including inadequate staffing, training, time and prioritisation of donor-linking, and inadequate legislative provisions to support practice. Counsellors called for clarity in legislation addressing different contexts of donation and providing measures to ensure the recording of and access to identifying information. They expressed a need for comprehensive, funded donor-linking services, therefore facilitating choice, and services staffed by professionally trained and supported staff.

Sperm Donors' Identity Disclosure: Is It REALLY Crucial? For Whom?

OBJECTIVE

To study the preference of sperm donors with identity disclosure (ID) versus anonymous donors (AD) and to understand if this selection affects clinical outcomes in an Israeli population.

METHODS

This retrospective study included patients who chose imported sperm donation during 2017-2021. Of these, 526 used their own (autologous) oocytes and 43 patients used donated oocytes (DO). The primary endpoint was the type of chosen donor with ID versus AD. We examined the tendency toward ID according to demographic parameters and the theoretical impact of donor-type selection on reproductive outcome and compared patients who performed cycles with autologous oocytes with those using DO.

RESULTS

Single women had a significantly higher probability of choosing sperm donors with ID than heterosexual couples (55.6% vs. 33.3%, OR 2.5, CI 95% 1.52-4.11, P < 0.001). Although not significant, same-sex couples were more likely to choose sperm donors with ID than heterosexual couples (49.1% vs. 33.3%, OR 1.93, CI 95% 0.97-3.85, P = 0.06). Sperm donor samples, 2501 vials, were imported. It was performed 698 intra-uterine insemination and 812 in vitro fertilization cycles were performed, respectively, resulting in 283 pregnancies without differences between patients who chose sperm donors with ID versus AD sperm. No significant differences were observed regarding the option for sperm donors with ID between patients using DO (44.2%) and those using autologous oocytes (51.3%).

CONCLUSION

While ID is important for a certain section (mainly single) of recipients, it is far from the only dominant factor during donor selection. Sperm donation type does not impact clinical outcomes.

Extended families? Contact expectations and experiences of egg donors donating to previously unknown recipients

In New Zealand egg donation is identity-release, and donors may be known to recipients, e.g. family members/friends, or previously unknown e.g. clinic-recruited or sourced through advertising. In the case of unknown donors, New Zealand practice allows donors and recipients to meet face-to-face prior to donation in a joint counselling meeting. While contact details may not necessarily be exchanged in counselling, information-exchange and contact expectations are usually addressed. In previous papers, we explored donors' motivations and experiences of donation. In this paper, we explore donors' ideas around their role in relation to the donor-conceived person (DCP) and their expectations and experiences of information-exchange and contact. While donors did not see themselves as parents and were aware of appropriate boundaries, they described a sense of ongoing connection to DCP, often framing this in extended family terms. They desired to be kept informed about DCP, considered themselves 'on standby' for information requests or in-person contact and valued the opportunity for connection between their children and DCP. Donors were, however, cognisant of the limits to their ability to ensure information-exchange and contact and sometimes struggled with their perceived disempowered position. Meeting prior to donation may both clarify and reinforce expectations of information-exchange and contact.

Experiences and attitudes of Danish men who were sperm donors more than 10 years ago; a qualitative interview study

BACKGROUND

More knowledge about the long-term impact of sperm donation is essential as the donor's attitude towards donation may change over time. Personal and social developments may prompt a rethinking of previous actions and decisions, or even regret. Thus, the aim of this study was to explore the experiences and attitudes of men who were sperm donors more than 10 years ago.

METHODS

From May to September 2021, semi-structured, qualitative interviews were conducted with 23 former donors (> 10 years since last donation) from Cryos International sperm bank. Two participants were non-anonymous donors and 21 were anonymous. The interviews were conducted by phone or via video (mean 24 minutes). All interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim and rendered anonymous. Data were analyzed using thematic analysis.

RESULTS

The analysis showed that most men had been donors for monetary and altruistic purposes, and now considered sperm donation as a closed chapter that was 'unproblematic and in the past'. Most men valued anonymity and emphasized the non-relatedness between donor and donor conceived offspring. Knowledge about recipients and donor offspring was seen as 'damaging' as it could create unwanted feelings of relatedness and responsibility towards them. All men acknowledged donor conceived persons' potential interests in knowing about their genetic heritage in order to understand appearance and personal traits, but also emphasized the donors' rights to anonymity. Potential breach of anonymity was generally considered 'highly problematic' as it was expected to disturb their families and force a relationship on them.

CONCLUSION

This study reports on former donors who might not have volunteered for research due to lack of interest or protection of privacy. The majority of men valued anonymity and clearly demarcated a line between sperm donation and fatherhood, which was enforced by not knowing about the donor offspring or recipients.

The opposite of a step parent - The genetics without any of the emotion: 'sperm donors' reflections on identity-release donation and relatedness

This paper draws upon data from an online survey with closed- and open-ended questions completed by 168 identity-release sperm donors who had all donated in the UK between 2010 and 2016. Paying particular attention to the qualitative data obtained from the donors' responses to the open-ended questions, this paper explores the sperm donors' thoughts and feelings about being an identity-release donor and about future information exchange and contact with offspring conceived with their gametes. It shows that the majority of donors regarded identity-release donation as their preferred method of donation, supported the removal of anonymity, did not have concerns about being an identity-release donor and indeed saw positives for both the donor-conceived offspring and themselves. However, it also highlights that the donors' thoughts and feelings about being an identity-release sperm donor, how they saw themselves in relation to the individual conceived with their donation, and their preferences for information exchange and contact, varied greatly. The paper explores how identity-release donation is surrounding by many unknowns and consequentially sperm donors struggle to conceptualize what it means to be an identity-release sperm donor. As well as adding to the literature on donor conception, relatedness and kinship, by giving voice to sperm donors' own views and experience of the identity-release regulatory context, and their thoughts and feelings about future information exchange, this paper will help policy makers and clinicians prepare for the imminent time when donor-conceived individuals in the UK can start requesting their donor's identity.

Psychosocial consequences of oocyte donation in donors: A systematic review

Assisted Reproductive Technology by means of oocyte donation is a very successful method leading to psychosocial consequences in donors. The aim of the present study was to conduct a systematic review of the existing literature on the psychosocial consequences of oocyte donation in the donors. The present study was conducted as a systematic review based on the PRISMA checklist. Searches were performed in PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and SID databases for the documents written between 2000 and 2020 regardless of the research methodology and the employed tools. English and Persian articles focusing on psychological and social issues of oocyte donation were reviewed. From 2,759 studies which were found, finally 14 related ones were selected. Psychosocial challenges of donors were obtained in three dimensions including short-term and long-term psychological reactions to treatment complications, emotional reactions to their function as an oocyte donor, and emotional reactions to the resulting offspring resulting and related social challenges. According to the existing studies, oocyte donation is a challenging process with short-term and long-term psychosocial consequences for donors. In order to prevent the feasible psychosocial hazards caused by the donation process, it is necessary to provide oocyte donors with psychosocial support, proper counseling, and awareness of the facts and possible issues ahead.

Attitudes of sperm donors towards offspring, identity release and extended genetic screening

RESEARCH QUESTION

What is sperm donors' attitude towards offspring, anonymity and extended genetic screening?

DESIGN

An online questionnaire for sperm donors was administered at Cryos International in the USA and Denmark between 9 and 30 September 2020. A total of 233 donors (37 in the USA and 196 in Denmark) completed the questionnaire. This study is unique because it was performed in a setting that allows donors to choose to be either ID-release or non-ID-release donors.

RESULTS

Most donors had two motives to donate: helping childless people and/or financial compensation. ID-release donors differed significantly from non-ID-release donors in numerous aspects of the donation, including relationships with the offspring, information sharing with others and wanting information about offspring. In general, donors had a very positive attitude towards genetic testing and extended genetic screening.

CONCLUSIONS

Offering the possibility for donors to be either ID-release or non-ID-release allows more donors to be recruited than if only one option were available. The multiple differences between the two donor types suggests that these are groups with profoundly different attitudes towards donation. The general attitude of donors towards genetic testing and expanded genetic screening is very positive but further studies on the attitude of candidate donors are needed.

Constructions of surrogates, egg donors, and mothers: Swedish gay fathers’ narratives

The study explored in detail how Swedish gay fathers (through surrogacy) talked about the surrogate mother and the egg donor. Thirteen semi-structured interviews with 22 gay fathers were conducted and analysed using critical discursive analysis. The surrogates were primarily constructed as a close family member, but occasionally in terms of their instrumental function. They were often described as active and independent, but occasionally as vulnerable or exploited. The egg donors were in some interviews constructed as close family members, while others talked about them as distant acquaintances. Further, donors were constructed either as a significant individual (for the fathers), or as an instrumental provider of the oocyte. While some participants constructed the surrogate and/or donor as their child’s mother(s), others were more reluctant or ambivalent about the mother construct. In conclusion, the participants engaged in rhetorical work that shed a positive light on surrogacy, and their own decisions were depicted as solid, ethical and genuine. The participants’ positive framing can be understood as the production of a counter discourse, in relation to an ongoing debate in Sweden, in which surrogacy is constructed as exploitation, dehumanization and prostitution.

Emerging Views of Kinships Created Through Oocyte Donation

BACKGROUND

The United States has the highest number of oocyte donation cycles, which account for an estimated one-quarter of all worldwide oocyte donation cycles. Although there has been a steady rise in oocyte donation treatment, understanding the kinship views of those intimately involved is lacking. These include women oocyte donors and parents who received donor oocytes to establish a pregnancy.

PURPOSE

To explore the views and perspectives about genetic relationships and lineages among women who were oocyte donors and parents who received donated oocytes 10 to 12 years after donors and parents underwent oocyte donation procedures to establish a pregnancy.

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

A longitudinal cohort of pregnant women who received donor oocytes participated in an expanded, follow-up study 12 years postpregnancy that included the women's heterosexual partners and biological fathers. Women who donated oocytes anonymously 10 to 12 years prior also participated. Qualitative content analysis was used to analyze participants' in-depth interviews.

RESULTS

Six women who received donor oocytes and their heterosexual partners and biological fathers (n = 6), representing 12 children conceived by oocyte donation, and 3 women who donated oocytes anonymously representing 3 children participated. Themes that emerged from the women oocyte donors included a reexamination of anonymity and contact with recipient families, managing disclosure to their own children about possible half-siblings, and potential for consanguinity. For recipient parents, there was an overwhelming sense of gratitude to the women oocyte donors, concerns about navigating genetic information gaps, and contemplating future contact with the donors and/or half-siblings.

CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS

Nurses can play a vital role in supporting and educating women oocyte donors and recipient parents about navigating complex relationship issues in donor kinships.

Anonymous sperm donors' attitude towards donation and the release of identifying information

INTRODUCTION

Belgian legislation allows only strictly anonymous gamete donation and known donation (donation to a recipient known by the donor). Recently, an amendment of the legislation was proposed to grant donor offspring, as of 18 years old, the right to claim identifying information about their donor.

PURPOSE

The aim is to explore the attitude of actual sperm donors towards donation and the release of identifying information and to investigate which donors would be willing to donate when anonymity would be prohibited by law.

METHODS

All men who were accepted as sperm donors (n = 242) by AZ Jan Palfijn Hospital (Ghent, Belgium) were invited to complete an anonymous online survey. The response rate was 65.5%.

RESULTS

One in five (20.1%; n = 30) would continue sperm donation upon a legislation change towards identifiable donation. Three in four donors (75.2%) would agree to provide basic non-identifiable information about themselves and one in three (32.9%) would provide extra non-identifiable information such as a baby photo or a personal letter. Almost half of the donors (45.6%) would agree to donate in a system where the hospital can trace the donor at the child's request and contact the donor, leaving it to the donor to decide whether or not to have contact with the requesting donor child.

CONCLUSION

These findings show that only one in five current donors would continue to donate when identifiable. The study also demonstrates that current donors think more positive about alternative options and that nearly half of them are willing to be contacted by the hospital at the donor child's request, providing the donor can decide at that time whether or not to release his identity.

Oocyte donor age has a significant impact on oocyte recipients' cumulative live-birth rate: a population-based cohort study

OBJECTIVE

To study the impact of the donor's and recipient's age on the cumulative live-birth rate (CLBR) in oocyte donation cycles.

DESIGN

A population-based retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

Not applicable.

PATIENT(S)

All women using donated oocytes (n = 1,490) in Victoria, Australia, between 2009 and 2015.

INTERVENTION(S)

None.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

The association between the donor's and recipient's age and CLBR modeled by multivariate Cox proportional hazard regression with the covariates of male partner's age, recipient parity, and cause of infertility adjusted for, and donor age grouped as <30, 30-34, 35-37, 38-40, and ≥41 years, and recipient age as <35, 35-37, 38-40, 41-42, 43-44, and ≥45 years.

RESULT(S)

The mean age of the oocyte donors was 33.7 years (range: 21 to 45 years) with 49% aged 35 years and over. The mean age of the oocyte recipients was 41.4 years (range: 19 to 53 years) with 25.4% aged ≥45 years. There was a statistically significant relationship between the donor's age and the CLBR. The CLBR for recipients with donors aged <30 years and 30-34 years was 44.7% and 43.3%, respectively. This decreased to 33.6% in donors aged 35-37 years, 22.6% in donors aged 38-40 years, and 5.1% in donors aged ≥41 years. Compared with recipients with donors aged <30 years, the recipients with donors aged 38-40 years had 40% less chance of achieving a live birth (adjusted hazard ratio 0.60; 95% CI, 0.43-0.86) and recipients with donors aged ≥41 years had 86% less chance of achieving a live birth (adjusted hazard ratio 0.14; 95% CI, 0.04-0.44). The multivariate analysis showed no statistically significant effect of the recipient's age on CLBR.

CONCLUSION(S)

We have demonstrated that the age of the oocyte donor is critical to the CLBR and is independent of the recipient woman's age. Recipients using oocytes from donors aged ≥35 years had a statistically significantly lower CLBR when compared with recipients using oocytes from donors aged <35 years.

The attitude of female students towards sperm donation by their partner

PURPOSE

The aim of this study is to assess the attitude of heterosexual female students towards sperm donation by their partners and towards sperm donation in general.

METHODS

The method is an online anonymous survey of 1525 female students.

RESULTS

The majority of the women had a positive attitude towards sperm donation in general, but only 37% would support their partner if he would want to donate. The highest barriers to accepting donation by their partner were the fact that he would have one or more children that she would not know (55.8%) and the chance that he would be traced by his donor offspring (58.9%). There was a significant difference between the general attitude towards sperm donation as a fertility treatment and the attitude towards sperm donation by the partner.

CONCLUSIONS

Men rightly worry about their partner or future partner when they donated or consider donating sperm. Only about one in three women would support their partner if he would want to donate. The majority of women perceived sperm donation by their partner as an act that also concerns them and believed that they should be heard in this decision. To promote full informed consent, the relational component should be included in counselling donors, not only regarding the present but also regarding the (possible) future partner.

New realities for the practice of egg donation: a family-building perspective

The practice of egg donation in the United States has been based on assumptions about secrecy, anonymity, and contact among the parties that require reexamination. This article argues for the need to acknowledge that secrecy and anonymity are no longer viable assumptions and that all parties may have a strong interest in contact and connection. A shift in the narrative for the practice of egg donation from a purely medical perspective to a broader family-building perspective is described. Significant practice changes to accommodate the new realities, rooted in a family-building perspective, are outlined in the arenas of medical record retention, informed consent, recipient and donor preparation and counseling, facilitation of contact among the parties, and outreach to other medical professionals, with the goal of promoting not only healthy pregnancy, but also long-term positive family functioning.

Un/familiar connections: on the relevance of a sociology of personal life for exploring egg and sperm donation

In recent decades, reproductive medicine has become a widespread global phenomenon. Within the field, donor conception, and the use of donated eggs, sperm or embryos from a third party, plays a key role. Despite the importance of those individuals who donate, there has been scant research exploring their experiences. Seeking to contribute to the growing, albeit still small, body of research on donors, this paper advocates bringing the process of donating into dialogue with a sociology of personal life. It suggests that important new insights about the donor experience can be achieved by utilising such a theoretical perspective. The paper applies a broad framework of a sociology of personal life to demonstrate that the decision to donate reverberates within donors' everyday lives and relationships, and explores, primarily theoretically, how it is that acts of donation bring such issues into play. To this end, the paper examines in detail three ways in which donating interacts with dimensions that are integral to personal life: "living" genetic connectedness, relationality and the intimate body. Ultimately, the paper suggests that a sociology of personal life shows light on new, unexplored questions for this field that demand greater scholarly attention.

Oocyte donation disclosure decisions: a longitudinal follow-up at middle childhood

Few studies have captured oocyte donation (OD) parents' decision processes about intended and actual disclosure over time. Likewise, OD children's perceptions about their family composition during middle childhood are underexplored. To address these gaps, a longitudinally followed cohort of OD recipient families was invited to participate in a qualitative, follow-up study. With an 86% response rate after 12 years, families were composed of oocyte recipient mothers (n = 6) and biological fathers (n = 6) representing 12 donor-oocyte conceived children (10.33 ± 1.23 years; mean ± SD). Of the 12 children, two that were aware and two that were unaware of their conceptual origins completed conversational interviews. Only one family in the initial cohort had disclosed OD to their children by the 12-year follow-up, despite 43% of parents intending to disclose and another 43% undecided about disclosure during pregnancy. Four parental disclosure patterns emerged at 12 years: (i) wanting to disclose; (ii) conflicted about disclosure; (iii) not planning to disclose; and (iv) having disclosed. Children that were unaware of their conceptual origins displayed no knowledge of their method of conception. There is a need for family-centric interventions to assist 'wanting to disclose' parents in their disclosure process and 'conflicted about disclosure' parents in their decision-making process post-OD treatment.

Female subfertility

Subfertility is common and affects one in six couples, half of whom lack an explanation for their delay in conceiving. Developments in the diagnosis and treatment of subfertility over the past 50 years have been truly remarkable. Indeed, current generations of couples with subfertility are more fortunate than previous generations, as they have many more opportunities to become parents. The timely access to effective treatment for subfertility is important as many couples have a narrow window of opportunity before the age-related effects of subfertility limit the likelihood of success. Assisted reproduction can overcome the barriers to fertility caused by tubal disease and low sperm count, but little progress has been made in reducing the effect of increasing age on ovarian function. The next 5-10 years will likely see further increases in birth rates in women with subfertility, a greater awareness of lifestyle factors and a possible refinement of current assisted reproduction techniques and the development of new ones. Such progress will bring challenging questions regarding the potential benefits and harms of treatments involving germ cell manipulation, artificial gametes, genetic screening of embryos and gene editing of embryos. We hope to see a major increase in fertility awareness, access to safe and cost-effective fertility care in low-income countries and a reduction in the current disparity of access to fertility care.

Anonymous Dutch sperm donors releasing their identity

This study examined the motivations of anonymous Dutch sperm donors to release their identity. It aimed to increase knowledge and encourage donors to become identifiable through a more informed decision, allowing more donor-conceived persons to contact their donors. Since 2010, anonymous sperm donors in the Netherlands can register in the Fiom KID-DNA Database developed by Fiom and Canisius Wilhelmina Hospital (CWZ). An online survey was sent to donors who registered in the database (May 2015-August 2017). A total of 179 male respondents participated in this study. The motives of most donors to register in the database were child-oriented: donors believe that their offspring are entitled to their physical and social details and/or they want to give their offspring the chance to contact them. Other motives are donor-oriented, such as the curiosity about the number of offspring, their well-being and the desire to establish contact. This research showed that, to encourage anonymous donors to release their identity, one should focus on providing information about the existence of DNA databases. As well as increasing the donor's awareness of problems donor-conceived persons can experience by the lack of knowledge about their descent, answering questions and concerns from donors, and exploring the curiosity about their offspring.

"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.

We wanted to choose us: how embryo donors choose recipients for their surplus embryos

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to explore factors affecting donors' choice of recipients for their surplus embryos in the New Zealand context of conditional, known donations.

BACKGROUND

Internationally, embryo donation has a low uptake in spite of large numbers of cryopreserved embryos. Possible reasons include a lack of knowledge about and concern for the future welfare of the resultant offspring. In New Zealand, donors and recipients meet prior to donation and legislation supports disclosure and access to genetic knowledge.

METHOD

Twenty-two embryo donors (10 couples, two individuals) were interviewed between March 2012 and February 2013 about their experiences of donation and factors affecting their donation. Interview data were analysed thematically.

RESULTS

In the interests of the welfare of the child resulting from donation, donors were invested in choosing recipients who would make suitable parents. They attempted to choose recipients similar to themselves, as well as those that they trusted to disclose the manner of conception and facilitate agreed-upon information exchange and contact.

CONCLUSION

The interest of donors in ensuring offspring well-being may lend support to conditional forms of open donation, allowing for assessment of recipients' suitability to parent, and for negotiation around information exchange and contact.

Gamete donors' reasons for, and expectations and experiences of, registration with a voluntary donor linking register

This paper reports on a study of the views and experiences of 21 sperm donors and five egg donors registered with UK DonorLink (UKDL), a voluntary DNA-based contact register established to facilitate contact between adults who wish to identify and locate others to whom they are genetically related following donor conception. Specifically, the paper examines donors' reasons for searching for, or making information about themselves available to donor-conceived offspring. Their expectations of registration with UKDL, experiences of being registered and finally, the experiences of those who had contacted donor-conceived offspring and other genetic relatives are investigated. While most respondents reported largely positive experiences of registration, the study found significant issues relating to concerns about donation, DNA testing, possible linking with offspring and expectations of any relationship that might be established with offspring that have implications for support, mediation and counselling. Research that puts the experiences, perceptions and interests of gamete donors as the central focus of study is a relatively recent phenomenon. This study contributes to this debate and highlights directions for future research in this area.

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.

Online sperm donation: a survey of the demographic characteristics, motivations, preferences and experiences of sperm donors on a connection website

STUDY QUESTION

What are the demographic characteristics, motivations, preferences and experiences of heterosexual, gay and bisexual sperm donors on a connection website (i.e. a website that facilitates direct contact between donors and recipients of gametes)?

SUMMARY ANSWER

This demographically diverse group of men was donating for altruistic reasons and perceived the website as providing greater choice over donation arrangements: approximately one third favoured anonymous donation, most of whom were heterosexual, whilst gay and bisexual donors were more likely to be in contact with children conceived with their sperm.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

Despite substantially more sperm donors being registered on connection websites than with clinics, there has been very little research on this population. Current understanding of the impact of sexual orientation on donors' attitudes is also limited.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

An online survey was conducted over 7 weeks with 383 men registered as sperm donors with Pride Angel, a large UK-based connection website for donors and recipients of sperm.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

The survey obtained data on participants' demographic characteristics and their motivations, preferences and experiences regarding online sperm donation, including attitudes towards contact with offspring. Differences according to participants' sexual orientation were examined.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

Most participants (80.4%, 308) were heterosexual, 10.5% (40) were gay and 9.1% (35) were bisexual; ages ranged from 18 to 69 years (median = 36, mean = 37.3, SD = 9.7). A greater proportion of gay and bisexual men desired open-identity donation (P < 0.005) and contact with offspring (P <0.005) than heterosexual men. Approximately one third (28.7%, 110) had donated sperm; 18.3% (70) had conceived at least one child, of whom a minority (25.7%, 18) were currently in contact with the child, comprising significantly more gay and bisexual than heterosexual men (P = 0.001). Heterosexual men were most likely to state a preference for natural insemination, although the large majority (94.3%, 66) of donors who had conceived children had used artificial insemination.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

Findings may not be representative of all sperm donors using connection websites because members of only one website participated and participants were, by necessity, a self-selected sample.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

This is the first comprehensive study of donors who connect with recipients via the internet, including a substantial number who have donated and conceived children. The findings indicate that sexual orientation may influence men's donation preferences and raise policy issues concerning donor recruitment and the incorporation of online sperm donation into clinical practice.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS

This study was supported by the Wellcome Trust (097857/Z/11/Z). E.T. is the co-founder of Pride Angel; the remaining authors have no conflicts of interest.

Embryo donation and counselling for the welfare of donors, recipients, their families and children

STUDY QUESTION

How do counsellors facilitating known 'open' embryo donation (ED) experience their roles and responsibilities?

SUMMARY ANSWER

Counsellors regard counselling for ED as entailing significant responsibility to ensure that the longer-term implications of the practice are understood and that positive relationships are established that will promote the well-being of donors, recipients, their families and the children involved.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

While counselling is frequently recommended in third-party assisted reproduction, there has been little research into the experiences of counsellors and their perceptions of their roles and responsibilities.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

Fertility counsellors were interviewed between March and October 2012 as to their experiences and perceptions of their roles and responsibilities.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

Fertility counsellors were recruited from across New Zealand and interviews were conducted with all nine counsellors involved in ED counselling. Interview data were analysed thematically to identify main themes.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

Counsellors regard ED as a complex practice with enduring implications arising from the genetic link between donors and offspring, which is seen to bestow immutable social ties. They see their role as the provision of implications counselling and the facilitation of ongoing positive relationships between donors and recipients in an 'open' context. Counsellors express concern about their responsibility for promoting the welfare of all parties--including that of the child--the limitations of counselling, and the conflation of assessment and counselling roles.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

Experiences of counselling for ED may change over time as longer-term outcomes become more apparent.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

Further consideration needs to be given as to how the welfare principle may best be operationalised in counselling practice, particularly in contexts of 'open' donation.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS

This study was funded by an AUT University Faculty of Health and Environmental Sciences research grant. The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

What motivates men to offer sperm donation via the internet?

To investigate why men offer sperm donation via the internet, a questionnaire was disseminated via 39 Dutch-language websites thought to be visited by potential sperm donors. Nine internet donors completed the survey, men who typically knew the women they were donating to. Their responses were compared with those of a control group of 35 general sperm bank donors who were recruited using flyers in Dutch sperm banks, and who were typically unaware of the identity of the eventual recipients. The findings shed light on the motives and attitudes of internet donors. Both groups of donors indicated that their primary motivation for donating was altruism (>80% of all respondents). However, internet donors had a more pronounced desire to procreate than sperm bank donors (6 out of 9, i.e. 66 vs. 22%, respectively) and more often felt that they had good genes they wished to pass on (5 out of 9, i.e. 55 vs. 31%, respectively). The main reason internet donors gave for donating via the internet was that they wanted to know the prospective parents and be kept up to date on the progress of the offspring conceived from their donations. This distinguishes them significantly from sperm bank donors. A further finding was that they were not prompted to avoid the formal donation circuit for which, by law in the Netherlands, pregnancies resulting from donations have to be registered in a central database. This study is subject to several, in some cases inevitable, limitations, but it provides an interesting starting point that future studies can seek to confirm and extend.

Gamete donation, information sharing and the best interests of the child: an overview of the psychosocial evidence

This paper overviews key empirical findings from social science research regarding the impact of gamete donation on child wellbeing. In particular, the paper addresses current regulatory debates concerning information sharing and the best interests of the child by considering psychosocial aspects of telling--or not telling--children about their donor conception and the identity of their donor. The paper identifies three core sets of empirical, ethical and policy concerns underpinning these debates relating to (i) the psychosocial impact of gamete donation per se on child wellbeing, (ii) the psychosocial impact of parental disclosure decisions on child wellbeing, and (iii) the psychosocial implications of donor identification for donor-conceived offspring. The paper illustrates how these concerns are framed by ideas about the significance-or not-of 'genetic relatedness'; ideas which have come to the fore in contemporary discussions about the potential consequences of donor-conceived individuals gaining access to their donor's identity. By drawing together research findings that may be pertinent to the regulation of gamete donation and information sharing, a further aim of this paper is to explore the potential use and misuse of empirical 'evidence' in ethical and policy debates. Whilst this paper starts from the premise that psychosocial data has a vital role in grounding normative discussions, it seeks to contribute to this dialogue by highlighting both the value and limitations of social science research. In particular, the paper argues for a cautious approach to applying psychosocial evidence to ethical issues that is sensitive to the caveats and nuances of research findings and the changing cultural and regulatory context.

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.

Assisted reproduction: Ethical and legal issues

Since inception, the use of assisted reproductive technologies (ART) has been accompanied by ethical, legal, and societal controversies. Guidelines have been developed to address many of these concerns; however, the rapid evolution of ART requires their frequent re-evaluation. We review the literature on ethical and legal aspects of ART, highlighting some of the most visible and challenging topics. Of specific interest are: reporting of ART procedures and outcomes; accessibility to ART procedures; issues related to fertility preservation, preimplantation genetic testing, gamete and embryo donation, and reproductive outcomes after embryo transfer. Improvements in ART reporting are needed nationally and worldwide. Reporting should include outcomes that enable patients to make informed decisions. Improving access to ART and optimizing long-term reproductive outcomes, while taking into account the legal and ethical consequences, are challenges that need to be addressed by the entire community of individuals involved in ART with the assistance of bioethicists, legal counselors, and members of society in general.

National self-sufficiency in reproductive resources: An innovative response to transnational reproductive travel

Transnational reproductive travel is symptomatic of insufficient supplies of reproductive resources, including donor gametes and gestational surrogacy services, and inequities in access to these within domestic health-care jurisdictions. Here, we argue that an innovative approach to domestic policy making using the framework of the National Self-Sufficiency paradigm represents the best solution to domestic challenges and the ethical hazards of the global marketplace in reproductive resources.

Preferences and needs regarding future contact with donation offspring among identity-release gamete donors: results from the Swedish Study on Gamete Donation

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the attitudes and preferences regarding future contact with donation offspring among identity-release donors of oocytes or sperm.

DESIGN

Longitudinal cohort study.

SETTING

University-based fertility clinics in Sweden.

PATIENT(S)

A total of 210 women and men were questioned 5-8 years after their donation of oocytes or sperm.

INTERVENTION(S)

Questionnaires given to donors prior to their donation and 5-8 years after donation.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

Donors' attitudes and preferences regarding future contact with their donation offspring.

RESULT(S)

A majority of identity-release oocyte (65%) and sperm (70%) donors were positive toward being contacted by an offspring of mature age. More than half wanted to be notified by the clinic when an offspring requested information about them, but about a third were negative toward receiving this information. One in four reported a need for counseling regarding future contact with an offspring.

CONCLUSION(S)

Several years after donation, a majority of identity-release oocyte and sperm donors show positive attitudes toward future contact with their offspring. Donors appear to have different preferences for information and support regarding such contact. Fertility clinics and health-care services should provide counseling regarding contact with an offspring to the donors who express a need for this.

Attitudes towards disclosure and relationship to donor offspring among a national cohort of identity-release oocyte and sperm donors

STUDY QUESTION

What are oocyte donors and sperm donors' attitudes towards disclosure and relationship to donor offspring?

SUMMARY ANSWER

Oocyte and sperm donors in an identity-release donor programme support disclosure to donor offspring and have overall positive or neutral attitudes towards future contact with offspring.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

There is a global trend towards open-identity gamete donation with an increasing number of countries introducing legislation allowing only identifiable donors. While women and men who enrol in identity-release donor programmes accept that they may be contacted by donor offspring, there is limited knowledge of their attitudes towards disclosure to donor offspring and how they perceive their relationship to potential donor offspring.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE AND DURATION

The present study is part of the ‘Swedish study on gamete donation’, a prospective cohort study including donors at all fertility clinics performing donation treatment in Sweden. During a 3-year period (2005–2008), donors were recruited consecutively and a total of 157 oocyte donors and 113 sperm donors (who did not donate to a specific ‘known’ couple) were included prior to donation. Participants in the present study include 125 female (80%) and 80 male donors (71%) that completed two follow-up assessments.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTINGS AND METHODS

Participants completed two postal questionnaires 2 months after donation and 14 months after donation. Attitudes towards disclosure to donor offspring were assessed with an established instrument. Perceptions of involvement with donor offspring and need for counselling was assessed with study-specific instruments. Statistical analyses were performed with non-parametric tests.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

A majority of oocyte and sperm donors supported disclosure to donor offspring (71–91%) and had positive or neutral attitudes towards future contact with offspring (80–87%). Sperm donors reported a higher level of involvement with potential donor offspring compared with oocyte donors (P = 0.005). Few donors reported a need for more counselling regarding the consequences of their donation.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

While the multicentre study design strengthens external validity, attrition induced a risk of selection bias. In addition, the use of study-specific instruments that have not been psychometrically tested is a limitation.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

The positive attitudes towards disclosure to offspring of female and male identity-release donors are in line with previous reports of anonymous and known donors. While our results on donors' general positive or neutral attitudes towards future contact with potential donor offspring are reassuring, a subset of donors with negative attitudes towards such contact warrants concern and suggests a need for counselling on long-term consequences of donating gametes.

STUDY FUNDING

The ‘Swedish study on gamete donation’ was funded by the Swedish Research Council, the Swedish Council for Health, Working Life and Welfare, and the Regional Research Council in Uppsala-Örebro. There are no conflicts of interest to declare.

When 'sperm' becomes 'donor': transitions in parents' views of the sperm donor

Abstract Little is known about recipients' views of their sperm donor. This study aimed to examine the possible transitions or consistencies in donor sperm recipients' (DSRs') view on the sperm donor over time. A longitudinal qualitative study of 19 Belgian heterosexual DSRs was undertaken. Interviews took place with both partners of the couple during pregnancy, at birth and 1.5-2 years after birth, and were analysed using a grounded theory approach. Recipients who intended to disclose exhibited a transition in their awareness of the donor from being of minimal importance to one who was increasingly seen as part of their family narrative. This was partly triggered by the offspring's life, remarks about resemblance and the socio-cultural context. The perceived position of the donor changed for most recipients from a threatening rival to a 'distractor'. This change was supported by the emerging father-child bond and the confidence that stemmed from it. These observations were applicable to those recipients who intended to disclose their donor conception; for those recipients who intended not to disclose, little or no transition was observed. This study describes and analyses the transitions and consistencies in recipients' views of the donor over different stages of the family life-cycle (pregnancy, birth, toddler stage) and could help the fertility clinics tailor their counselling to the specific stages of parenthood.

Gamete donors' expectations and experiences of contact with their donor offspring

STUDY QUESTION

What are the expectations and experiences of anonymous gamete donors about contact with their donor offspring?

SUMMARY ANSWER

Rather than consistently wanting to remain distant from their donor offspring, donors' expectations and experiences of contact with donor offspring ranged from none to a close personal relationship.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

Donor conception is part of assisted reproduction in many countries, but little is known about its continuing influence on gamete donors' lives.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

A qualitative research model appropriate for understanding participants' views was employed; semi-structured interviews were conducted during January–March 2013.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

Before 1998, gamete donors in Victoria, Australia, were subject to evolving legislation that allowed them to remain anonymous or (from 1988) to consent to the release of identifying information. An opportunity to increase knowledge of donors' expectations and experiences of contact with their donor offspring recently arose in Victoria when a recommendation was made to introduce mandatory identification of donors on request from their donor offspring, with retrospective effect. Pre-1998 donors were invited through an advertising campaign to be interviewed about their views, experiences and expectations; 36 sperm donors and 6 egg donors participated.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

This research is unusual in achieving participation by donors who would not normally identify themselves to researchers or government inquiries. Qualitative thematic analysis revealed that most donors did not characterize themselves as parents of their donor offspring. Donors' expectations and experiences of contact with donor offspring ranged from none to a close personal relationship.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

It is not possible to establish whether participants were representative of all pre-1998 donors.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

Anonymous donors' needs and desires are not homogeneous; policy and practice should be sensitive and responsive to a wide range of circumstances and preferences. Decisions made to restrict or facilitate contact or the exchange of information have ramifications for donors as well as for donor-conceived people.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

The study was funded by the Victorian Department of Health. The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

Not applicable.

Proposed legislative change mandating retrospective release of identifying information: consultation with donors and Government response

STUDY QUESTION

How do gamete donors who presumed they could remain anonymous respond to proposed legislation to retrospectively remove anonymity?

SUMMARY ANSWER

A little more than half of the donors opposed the recommendation to introduce legislation to remove donor anonymity with retrospective effect.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

An increasing proportion of parents disclose their origins to their donor-conceived children and growing numbers of donor-conceived adults are aware of how they were conceived. Research indicates that access to information about the donor is important to donor-conceived people. However, worldwide most donor-conceived people are unable to find any identifying information about the donor because of the practice of anonymous gamete donation.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

This study adopted a qualitative research model using semi-structured interviews with gamete donors that included open questions. Interviews with 42 volunteers were conducted between December 2012 and February 2013.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

Before 1998 gamete donors in Victoria, Australia, were able to remain anonymous. Pre-1998 donors were invited through an advertising campaign to be interviewed about their views on a recommendation that legislation mandating retrospective release of identifying information be introduced.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

Donors were almost evenly split between those who supported and those who rejected the recommendation to introduce legislation to remove donor anonymity with retrospective effect. About half of the donors who rejected the recommendation suggested the compromise of persuading donors voluntarily to release information (whether identifying or non-identifying) to donor-conceived people. These donors were themselves willing to supply information to their donor offspring. The findings of this study informed the Victorian Government's response to the proposed legislative change. While acknowledging donor-conceived people's right of access to information about their donors, the Government decided that identifying information should be released only with the consent of donors and that donors should be encouraged to allow themselves to be identifiable to their donor offspring.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

There is no way of knowing whether participants were representative of all pre-1998 donors.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

The balancing of donors' and donor-conceived people's rights requires utmost sensitivity. All over the world, increasing numbers of donor-conceived people are reaching adulthood; of those who are aware of their mode of conception, some are likely to have a strong wish to know the identity of their donors. Legislators and policy-makers in jurisdictions permitting anonymous gamete donations will need to respond when these desires are expressed, and may choose to be guided by the model of consultation described in this paper.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS

The study was funded by the Victorian Department of Health. The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

Not applicable.