Two decades after legislation on identifiable donors in Sweden: are recipient couples ready to be open about using gamete donation?

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.

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.

An Ethical Examination of Donor Anonymity and a Defence of a Legal Ban on Anonymous Donation and the Establishment of a Central Register

Many if not most sperm donors in the early years of IVF donated under conditions of anonymity. There is, however, a growing awareness of the ethical cost of withholding identifying parental information from donor children. Today, anonymous donation is illegal in many jurisdictions, and some jurisdictions have gone as far as retrospectively invalidating contracts whereby donors were guaranteed anonymity. This article provides a critical evaluation of the ethics and legality of anonymous donation. We defend Australian and British legislation that has outlawed donor anonymity, and we argue for the establishment of a central registry that provides donor children with the ability to easily and reliably access identifying information about their donor parents.

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.

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.

Characteristics and intentions of heterosexual couples comprising a transgender man awaiting sperm donation to conceive a child

BACKGROUND

More than half of transgender (TG) men wish to have children. Until recently, TG people in France were rarely offered gamete donation, mainly because the Bioethics Law allows the use of assisted reproductive technologies (ART) only in infertile couples. The only option currently available for heterosexual couples with a TG man is ART with sperm donation. The Center for Study and Preservation of Eggs and Sperm (CECOS) of the Cochin Hospital is the first French center to propose sperm donation to such couples, and has done so since 1999.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the main characteristics and intentions of 43 couples, including a TG man and his cisgender female partner awaiting sperm donation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective analysis was carried out on the records from October 2010 to December 2019, of 43 couples with a TG man who applied for sperm donation at the CECOS of the Cochin Hospital (Paris, France).

RESULTS

The mean age of TG men and cisgender women was 32 ± 6.6 and 29.7 ± 4.6 years, respectively. In 77% of cases, the couple met before the man's transition. Eighty-one percent of the couples were in a stable relationship for at least 3 years, and 94% wished to have a child for no more than 5 years. Almost all of the couples (95%) intended to inform their child of their conception by sperm donation and the father's transidentity (92%).

DISCUSSION

Due to restrictive French legislation, the profile of our couples probably does not reflect that of all couples consisting of a TG man and a cisgender woman. The study took place over a long period of time and the characteristics of the couples could probably change over time.

CONCLUSION

The couples often met before the man's transition, cohabited for several years, intended to inform their child of sperm donation and the father's transidentity.

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

STUDY QUESTION

How do heterosexual parents experience identity-release donation when adult children have obtained information about their sperm donor?

SUMMARY ANSWER

Adult offspring's receipt of identifying information about the sperm donor challenged the fathers' role as a parent, which was reflected in how parents positioned the donor in relation to the family.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

An increasing number of countries provide access to treatment with identity-release or 'open-identity' donors. However, there is limited knowledge about how parents experience and manage the situation when adult offspring obtain identifying information about the donor and may even establish contact with him.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

This qualitative interview study included 23 parents whose offspring had obtained information about their sperm donor. Interviews were conducted from October 2018 to January 2019.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

A purposive sample of parents (15 mothers and 8 fathers) was recruited via adult offspring, who had requested identifying donor information at five Swedish University hospitals. All participating parents were part of a heterosexual couple who had conceived with sperm from an identity-release donor. Individual semi-structured interviews were conducted face-to face or via telephone, and transcribed audio recordings were analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

The parents expressed diverse experiences related to their parenthood and the presence of the donor after offspring had obtained information about him; these were described in two themes. The theme 'Navigating (in)visible markers of parenthood' describes parenthood as embedded with dichotomous meanings of nature and nurture that parents navigated in relation to social approval. The theme 'Positioning the donor in a new landscape' describes how parents managed the presence of the donor by positioning him at a distance or acknowledging him as a person or even as part of the family, while some struggled to position him, giving rise to ambivalent feelings. The absence of genetic connectedness challenged the father's role as parent, which was reflected in parents' positioning of the donor.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

The study was performed within the context of the Swedish legislation on identity-release donation and is based on experiences of heterosexual couples who had used sperm donation and had informed their offspring about their donor conception. This, together with the fact that parents' accounts were predominantly represented by mothers, must be taken into consideration regarding transferability to other populations.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

Negotiations of social and genetic parenthood are still present among parents many years after treatment and may resurface when adult offspring obtain the donor's identity. Access of the adult offspring to identifying information about the donor may have unexpected consequences for family relations, including expanding the family to include the donor. Challenges related to male infertility and family dynamics indicate that parents should have access to counseling and support to manage family life with varying genetic linkage within and outside the family unit.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

Financial support was from The Swedish Research Council (Grant 2013-2712). There are no conflicts of interest to declare.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

N/A.

Understanding parents' intention to disclose the donor conception to their child by application of the theory of planned behaviour

STUDY QUESTION

Does the theory of planned behaviour (TPB) contribute to understanding parents’ intention to share information about genetic origin with their donor-conceived child?

SUMMARY ANSWER

Parents’ intention to start disclosure was associated with beliefs that disclosure would have desired consequences and a desire to act in accordance to societal norms.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

Despite a growing consensus on donor-conceived offspring’s right to information about their genetic origin, disclosure to the child remains a challenge for many parents, particularly heterosexual couples. TPB has successfully been applied to many health-related contexts and may contribute to increase understanding of parents’ decision-making about disclosing the genetic origin to their children.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

A cross-sectional survey study of heterosexual couples with children aged 7–8 years following identity-release oocyte donation (OD, n = 83) or sperm donation (SD, n = 113).

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

The study is part of the prospective longitudinal Swedish Study on Gamete Donation. Couples accepted for oocyte or sperm donation treatment at seven fertility clinics were recruited in 2005–2008 and requested to complete four postal surveys in the following 10 years. The present study sample includes heterosexual couples with donor-conceived children aged 7–8 years. Data were collected with the study-specific TPB Disclosure Questionnaire and analysed with path analysis.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

More than half of parents following OD or SD had already disclosed the donor conception to their child (OD 61%, SD 58%). Among parents who had not yet started the disclosure process, the belief that disclosure would have desired consequences (P < 0.05) and a desire to act in accordance to social norms favouring disclosure (P < 0.01) were positively associated with their intention to talk with their child about the donor conception during the upcoming year. In contrast, perceived confidence to talk with the child about his/her genetic origin was found to be negatively associated with the intention to start the disclosure process (P < 0.05). Type of treatment (OD/SD) and the existence or absence of a genetic link to the child were not directly associated with parents’ disclosure intentions.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

The study was performed with heterosexual couples within the context of the Swedish legislation on identity-release donation, which limits the generalizability to other populations. Also, attrition may have introduced selection bias to the study findings. Future studies using the TPB Disclosure Questionnaire (TPB-DQ) with larger samples are needed to validate this measure.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

Application of the theory of planned behaviour highlighted the importance of attitudes and social norms for parents’ intention to share information about the donor conception with their child. The present results add to the complexity of disclosure of donor conception, and may contribute to promote open communication and support family life following donor conception.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

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

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

N/A

Exploring Infertile Couples' Decisions to Disclose Donor Conception to The Future Child

Background

Despite significant advances in reproductive technology, using donor assisted reproductive technology is a double-edged sword that has numerous challenges. One of the most challenging issues for couples is whether or not to disclose this information to donor offspring. This study, therefore, explored infertile couples’ decision to dis- close donor conception to their future child.

Materials and Methods

This qualitative study was conducted using content analysis approach in 2012 in the Milad Infertility Centre, Mashhad, Iran. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews with 32 infertile persons including nine couples and 14 women who were selected by purposive sampling. Data were analysed by conven- tional qualitative content analysis adopted by Graneheim and Lundman using MAXQDA 2010 software.

Results

Two categories were emerged: ‘not to disclose information to the child’ and ‘to disclose information to the child’. The first category consisted of three subcategories: 1. child support from probable harms; 2.to maintain healthy family relationships; and 3. lack of a compelling reason to disclose this information. The second category embraced four subcategories: 1. awareness of the others; 2. emergence of new living conditions; 3. appreciation for the donor; and 4. honesty among family members. The main reason for not disclosing information was to protect the child from probable harm.

Conclusion

Although protecting children from possible harms was a major reason for infertile couples' secrecy, keeping this secret would not be always easy. Therefore, increasing public awareness about the donation process in order to change the beliefs of community and eliminate the infertile couples’ concerns would help them to overcome this problem. Additionally, long-term psychological counselling during and after the donation process is highly rec- ommended.

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

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

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.

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

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

Ethical Challenges of Embryo Donation in Embryo Donors and Recipients

Background:

Embryo donation, as one of the novel assisted reproductive technologies (ART), has remained a controversial issue. This is due to this methods' need for individuals from outside the family circle. Their presence can cause many ethical issues and complicate the designing and planning of the embryo donation process. The present study was conducted with the aim to assess the ethical challenges of embryo donation from the view point of embryo donors and recipients.

Material and Methods:

This descriptive, cross-sectional study was conducted on 192 couples (96 embryo donators and 96 embryo recipients) referring to Isfahan Fertility and Infertility Center and Royan Institute, Iran. The subjects were selected through convenience sampling. The data collection tool was the researcher-made Ethical Challenges Questionnaire. Data were analyzed in SPSS software.

Results:

Embryo donors and recipients expresses the most important ethical challenges of embryo donation in the principle of justice (70.20%) and respect for autonomy (42.57%), respectively.

Conclusions:

The four ethical principles are important in the view of embryo donors and recipients; however, they highlighted the importance of the principle of respect for autonomy considering the existing barriers in the services of infertility centers. Legislators and relevant authorities must take measures toward the development of guidelines for this treatment method in the framework of ethics principles and incorporate all four principles independently.

Acceptance of Donor Eggs, Donor Sperms, or Donor Embryos in Indian Infertile Couples

Context:

The reduction or loss of natural fertility is deeply painful in couples that are considering the use of donor gametes or donor embryos. This is the first study to assess the acceptability of donor gametes or embryos in Indian population.

Aim:

The aim of the study was to assess the attitude toward egg, sperm, and embryo donation among Indian the infertile couples.

Settings:

This study was conducted at infertility outpatient clinic New Delhi.

Design:

This study was a cross-sectional study.

Materials and Methods:

From October 1, 2015, to December 31, 2015, a total of 594 infertile couples were assessed. A well-structured questionnaire was given to each infertile couple at the first visit. Both female and male partners had filled the questionnaire separately. The acceptance rate of couple toward the egg, sperm, and embryo donation was assessed.

Results:

Out of 594 female partners, 118 females agreed for donor eggs (19.9%), 116 females agreed for donor sperms (19.5%), and 93 females agreed for donor embryos (15.7%). Out of 594 male partners, 262 males agreed for donor eggs (44.1%), 90 males agreed for donor sperms (15.2%), and 141 males agreed for donor embryos (23.7%).

Conclusions:

The overall acceptance of donor eggs, sperms, or embryos in Indian infertile couples is low. The acceptance rate of females for donor eggs or donor sperms is same, but males are more amenable to accept donor eggs than donor sperms. This is the first study to assess the acceptability of donor gametes or embryos in Indian population.

Parenting stress and its association with perceived agreement about the disclosure decision in parents following donor conception

INTRODUCTION

For many donor-conceiving heterosexual parents, the process of deciding whether and what to tell children about their genetic origin is challenging. We hypothesized that incomplete couple agreement about disclosure could be associated with parenting stress. The aim of the study was to investigate: (1) parenting stress levels among heterosexual parents of young children following gamete donation and (2) whether parenting stress is related to perceived agreement about disclosure of the donor conception to the children.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This study is part of the longitudinal multicenter Swedish Study on Gamete Donation and included a total of 213 heterosexual parents with children aged 1-4 years following oocyte donation (n = 103) and sperm donation (n = 110). Parents individually completed a questionnaire that included validated instruments on parenting stress (SPSQ) and relationship quality (ENRICH), as well as a study-specific measure on disclosure agreement. Multiple regression analysis was applied.

RESULTS

Incomplete couple agreement on disclosure to the children was not statistically significantly associated with increased levels of parenting stress. Relationship satisfaction consistently and significantly accounted for variation in parenting stress levels, indicating that relationship satisfaction had a buffering impact on parenting stress.

CONCLUSIONS

Parental stress does not appear to be negatively influenced by incomplete couple agreement about disclosure to children. As children grow up, reaching agreement about what to tell the child about the donor conception might become more relevant for couples' stress related to parenthood.

The Meaning of the Sperm Donor for Heterosexual Couples: Confirming the Position of the Father

In the literature, relatively little attention has been paid to the meaning of donor involvement in the intimate couple dyad. The current study aimed to enrich our understanding of couples' meaning-making regarding the anonymous sperm donor and how they dealt with the donor involvement. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with nine couples, who had at least one child conceived through sperm donation. Our thematic analysis showed that the donor conception was seen as a different path to create a normal family. Once the family was formed, most couples avoided talking about the donor because it was perceived as disrupting men's growing confidence in their position as father. Participants tried to confirm the position of the father to protect the family relationships. Uncertainties about how they were perceived as parents showed the continuing dominance of genetic ties within our social discourse. Participants also dealt with reminders of the donor in their daily life. Overall, they tried to manage the space taken up by the donor and to protect the position of the father. We relate our findings to literature on topic avoidance and shared obliviousness in families. For counseling practice, it could be useful to explore couples' meaning-making about the donor as this seemed to serve family functioning.

Who requests their sperm donor's identity? The first ten years of information releases to adults with open-identity donors

OBJECTIVE

To report findings from 10 years of requests from adults eligible to obtain their open-identity sperm donor's information.

DESIGN

Analysis of archived family and donor data. Semistructured interviews at information releases.

SETTING

Not applicable.

PATIENT(S)

A total of 85 DI adults requesting 43 donor identities; program data on 256 DI families.

INTERVENTION(S)

None.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

We identified [1] demographic predictors of requesting donor identities, [2] information release timing and length, and [3] request motives.

RESULT(S)

Just >35% of eligible DI adults requested their donor's identity. Adults ranged from 18-27 years, requesting at median age 18 years. More women than men requested. Proportionally fewer adults requested when they had heterosexual-couple parents, and proportionally more when they had one rather than two parents. In interviews, the common theme was wanting to know more about the donor, especially about shared characteristics. Most adults planned to contact their donor. More than 94% of adults had donors who were open to contact; adults expressed modest expectations about this contact.

CONCLUSION(S)

In 2001, the first adults became eligible to obtain their open-identity sperm donor's information. Ten years of identity requests at one program indicates that information about one's donor is important to a significant proportion of these DI adults. Most requested their donor's identity soon after becoming eligible, suggesting some urgency to wanting the information. Interview data highlighted the role of donor information in helping adults better understand themselves and their ancestry. Findings hold important implications for practice and policy.

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

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

[Information, transmission, secrecy: What kind of discourse for children born by gamete donation?]

The number of children born through gamete donation grows by the conceptions made abroad. All the couples engaging in this process do not benefit from of the same support around the issues raised by the information to the child and its terms. Through a literature review, the authors explore the data on information intentions from parents to child and to entourage, the influence of the issue of anonymity, the effective rate information, the influences of the age of the child, the terms information and links with family dynamics. The quantitative findings underscore the complexity of this task, since 10-90 % of couples report an intention to inform their child from conception through donation, while 5-30 % actually inform them after birth. Fifty-nine to 93 % of the relatives are nevertheless informed. The authors will highlight the psychopathological tracks that support the possibility of narration for parents: the internalization of their infertility, the representation of the gift, the development of rivalry towards donors, the secrecy and privacy. The objective of this article is to enable carers to accompany this reflection among future parents, a better listening of the issues raise by the couples allowing shoring their process.

Exploring Motivations, Awareness of Side Effects, and Attitudes among Potential Egg Donors

This research study surveyed prospective egg donors at orientation to (a) understand women's motivations to donate eggs, (b) assess awareness and knowledge of egg donation prior to entry into the egg donation program, and (c) explore attitudes toward egg donation. Ninety-two women completed the questionnaire at one fertility clinic located in the Midwest between August 2011 and August 2012. Descriptive and inferential statistics as well as textual analysis were used to analyze the data. Three themes emerged regarding participant motivations: (1) altruistic, (2) financial, and (3) desire to pass on genetic material. The majority of participants were unconcerned with potential physical and psychological side effects; however, differences emerged based on motherhood status and educational level. Although potential donors felt recipients should receive some information about the donor, they tended to value privacy regarding information giving to resultant offspring. This research study has implications for social work practice, policy, and future research. It is crucial that women receive adequate procedural and side effect information prior to engaging in egg donation.

Development of A Questionnaire to Measure Attitude toward Oocyte Donation

Background

To our knowledge, there is no valid and comprehensive questionnaire that considers attitude toward oocyte donation (OD). Therefore this study has aimed to design and develop a tool entitled attitude toward donation-oocyte (ATOD-O) to measure attitude toward OD.

Materials and Methods

This methodological, qualitative research was undertaken on 15 infertile cases. In addition, we performed a literature review and search of various databases. Validity of this questionnaire was conducted by knowledgeable experts who determined indices such as relevancy, clarity, and comprehensiveness. Reliability of the questionnaire was assessed based on the opinions of experts and infertile couples referred to Royan Institute.

Results

ATOD-O was designed in 52 statements that covered various issues such as the OD process, donor and recipient characteristics, as well as family, emotional, psychological, legal, religious, and socio-economic dimensions. Results were scored as five points: 1 (strongly disagree), 2 (disagree), 3 (somewhat), 4 (agree), and 5 (strongly agree). The overall relevancy of the questionnaire was 97% and clarity was 96%. Overall comprehensiveness was 100%.

Conclusion

The findings from this preliminary validation study have indicated that ATOD-O is a valid measure for measuring and assessing attitude toward donated oocytes. This questionnaire can be used in studies regarding different groups of a society.

It takes two to tango: information-sharing with offspring among heterosexual parents following identity-release sperm donation

STUDY QUESTION

How do heterosexual parents reason about and experience information-sharing with offspring following identity-release sperm donation?

SUMMARY ANSWER

Sharing information about using donor-conception with offspring is a complex process at several levels, with the parent's personal beliefs and the child's responses serving as driving or impeding forces for the information-sharing process.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

The overall view of disclosure in gamete donation has shifted from secrecy to openness, but there is still uncertainty among parents concerning how and when to tell the child about his/her genetic origin. Most research on donor-conceived families has focused on donation treatment under anonymous or known circumstances, and there is a lack of studies in settings with identity-release donations.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

A qualitative interview study among 30 parents following identity-release sperm donation treatment. Interviews were conducted from February 2014 to March 2015.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

The present study is part of the prospective longitudinal Swedish Study on Gamete Donation (SSGD), including all fertility clinics performing gamete donation in Sweden. A sample of participants in the SSGD, consisting of heterosexual parents with children aged 7–8 years following identity-release sperm donation, participated in individual semi-structured interviews.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

The analysis revealed one main theme: information-sharing is a process, with three subthemes; (i) the parent as process manager, (ii) the child as force or friction and (iii) being in the process. The first two subthemes were viewed as being linked together and their content served as driving or impeding forces in the information-sharing process.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

The fact that the study was performed within the context of the Swedish legislation on identity-release donation must be taken into consideration as regards transferability to other populations, as this may affect parents' reasoning concerning their information-sharing with the child.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

The present findings highlight the role of the donor-conceived child in the information-sharing process and may contribute to develop counselling that increases parents' confidence in handling children's reactions to information about their genetic origin.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

Financial support from The Swedish Research Council, The Family Planning Fund in Uppsala and Ferring Pharmaceuticals. There are no conflicts of interest to declare.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

N/A.

The optimal number of offspring per gamete donor

Our aim was to create a mathematical basis to calculate the risks for unintended matings of consanguineous half-siblings from a donor in a society with approximately 10 million inhabitants. The Curie-Cohen model for calculation of the risk for consanguineous mating was used. When the number of offspring per donor is limited to 10, then the model gives a yearly risk for consanguineous matings below 1%. Thus 10 offspring gives a risk for consanguineous matings of 0.9% per year, or approximately once in every 100 years. The risk increases exponentially: with 15 offspring it exceeds 2% and with 25 it reaches up above 5%.

Motivations and experiences of patients seeking cross-border reproductive care: the Australian and New Zealand context

OBJECTIVE

To explore the motivations, clinical care, counseling, and support experiences of Australian and New Zealand participants considering or having participated in cross-border reproductive care (CBRC).

DESIGN

Questionnaire-based study.

SETTING

Not applicable.

PATIENT(S)

One hundred thirty-seven Australian and New Zealand participants aged 23-53 years.

INTERVENTION(S)

None.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES(S)

Quantitative and qualitative responses to an anonymously completed online questionnaire.

RESULT(S)

Quantitative responses from participants indicated that motivations for engaging in CBRC included limited availability of gamete donors in their home state, difficulty in meeting treatment eligibility criteria, and treatment being legally prohibited. Experiences of CBRC were generally rated positively in terms of medical needs (91.2%), safety (89.4%), and costs (85.7%), although rated more conservatively to emotional needs being met (57.9%). Less than half the sample (47.5%) had accessed some form of CBRC-related counseling. Themes identified in qualitative analysis reflected gamete supply and demand issues, the importance of donor information and disclosure, the personal impact of legislation, and ongoing support needs after CBRC treatment.

CONCLUSION(S)

A greater percentage of participants agreed that their CBRC clinic satisfied their overall medical needs and treatment expectations in comparison with overall emotional needs. Participants indicated access to post-treatment support counseling particularly with regard to their emotional well-being and disclosure issues to donor-conceived children would be useful. The implications of our findings for the provision of best-practice psychosocial counseling support and development of counseling guidelines are highlighted.

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.

Relationships in couples treated with sperm donation - a national prospective follow-up study

Background

Long-term follow-up on relationship quality in couples who use sperm donation is scarce. Therefore, this study aimed to analyse changes over time in satisfaction with relationship in heterosexual couples who were scheduled for treatment with sperm donation and IVF couples treated with their own gametes and to compare the two groups undergoing different treatment for infertility.

Method

A prospective follow-up study in which data were collected twice on two groups; couples receiving sperm donation and IVF couples using their own gametes. The ENRICH instrument was used to gain information about the individuals’ subjective experience of their relationship at the time of acceptance for treatment and again 2–5 years later.

Results

At the time of acceptance for treatment the men and women in the two groups assessed their relationships as being very solid on all dimensions and that there were no differences between the two groups. At the second assessment there was a decline in the satisfaction scores on the dimensions “Children and parenting” and “Egalitarian”, while an increase in scores was observed on “Conception of life” and “Conflict resolution” both for men and woman and also for the two groups. For the couples that had a successful treatment and gave birth to a child/children there was a decrease in satisfaction of the relation in the sperm donation group as well as in the group of couples having IVF with own gametes.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the overall quality of relationship is stable in couples receiving donated sperm and does not differ from couples undergoing IVF-treatment with own gametes.

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.

Attitudes toward embryo donation among staff at in vitro fertilization clinics

OBJECTIVE

To examine attitudes towards embryo donation among staff at in vitro fertilization clinics in Sweden.

DESIGN

Descriptive questionnaire study.

SETTING

University-based in vitro fertilization clinic.

SAMPLE

Study participants were the staff at all in vitro fertilization clinics in Sweden.

METHODS

A questionnaire with questions regarding different aspects of embryo donation was sent to the 338 healthcare professionals working at Swedish in vitro fertilization clinics.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Attitudes towards embryo donation.

RESULTS

A total of 207 persons (61%) responded to the questionnaire. A majority of the respondents (77%) considered that embryo donation to infertile couples should be permitted in Sweden. Most respondents (76%), and especially the men (96%), stated that it should be possible to donate surplus embryos for research. Forty-two percent of the respondents agreed with embryo donation to single women. A majority of respondents stated that special requirements with regard to the recipient's age, medical condition and criminal background should potentially be considered. The women stated that there should be special demands made concerning recipients' tobacco (48%) and alcohol abuse (92%). A majority considered that donors should be anonymous to the recipients (66%), but not to the child (9%).

CONCLUSIONS

Swedish in vitro fertilization staff have positive attitudes concerning embryo donation to infertile couples and also the use of surplus embryos for research.

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.

'Of course he's our child': transitions in social parenthood in donor sperm recipient families

This study examines transitions and consistencies in the views of donor sperm recipients on ‘parenthood’ and ‘family’ over time. A longitudinal qualitative study was carried out with 19 donor sperm recipients. Interviews took place during pregnancy, at birth and 1.5–2 years after birth and were analysed using a grounded theory approach. Participants intending to disclose the donor conception to their offspring (13/19) exhibited a transition from feeling anxious prior to birth to feeling more confident during the toddler stage about their parenthood. Previous anxieties about the lack of biological ties decreased as emerging social ties became more significant. Following birth, these participants (13/19) felt acknowledged by others as parents, which elicited feelings of normalization. Being able to engage in parenting and develop parental relations enhanced their confidence in their parental position. This confidence empowered donor sperm recipients to tackle future challenges and made them more convinced about their disclosure intention. Participants intending not to disclose the donor conception (6/19) reported viewing their parenthood as no different from parenthood experienced by naturally conceiving parents, no transitions were observed and insecurity about physical traits that could reveal the donor conception remained. These findings have implications for counselling throughout specific stages in parenthood.

Disclosure behaviour and intentions among 111 couples following treatment with oocytes or sperm from identity-release donors: follow-up at offspring age 1-4 years

STUDY QUESTION

Do heterosexual parents of young children following oocyte donation (OD) and sperm donation (SD) tell or intend to tell their offspring about the way he/she was conceived?

SUMMARY ANSWER

Following successful treatment with oocytes or sperm from identity-release donors in Sweden, almost all heterosexual couples intend to tell their offspring about the way he/she was conceived and some start the information-sharing process very early.

WHAT IS KNOWN AND WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS

Although the Swedish legislation on identity-release gamete donors has been in effect since 1985, there is a discrepancy between the behaviour of donor-insemination parents and the legal intention that offspring be informed about their genetic origin. The present study contributes data on a relatively large sample of oocyte and sperm recipient couples' intended compliance with the Swedish legislation.

DESIGN AND DATA COLLECTION METHOD

The present study constitutes a follow-up assessment of heterosexual couples who had given birth to a child following treatment with donated oocytes. Data collection was performed during 2007–2011; participants individually completed a questionnaire when the child was between 1 and 4 years of age.

PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING

The present study is part of the Swedish Study on Gamete Donation, a prospective longitudinal cohort study including all fertility clinics performing gamete donation in Sweden. For children conceived via OD, 107 individuals (including 52 couples and 3 individuals) agreed to participate (73% response). For children conceived via SD, the response rate was 70% (n = 122 individuals, including 59 couples and 4 individuals). Mean age of participants was 34 years (SD 4.4) and they reported a high level of education.

MAIN RESULTS

The majority of participants (78%) planned to tell the child about the donation, 16% had already started the information-sharing process and 6% planned not to tell their child about the donation or were undecided. Many were unsure about a suitable time to start the disclosure process and desired more information about strategies and tools for information sharing. Agreement on disclosure to offspring within the couple was related to the quality of the partner relationship.

BIAS AND GENERALIZABILITY

There is a risk of selection bias, with gamete recipients preferring secrecy and non-disclosure declining study participation. The results may be regarded as partly generalizable to heterosexual couples with young children following treatment with gametes from legislatively mandated identity-release donors in an established donor programme.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS

Study funding by Merck Serono, The Swedish Research Council and The Family Planning Fund in Uppsala. No conflicts of interest to declare.

Parenthood motives, well-being and disclosure among men from couples ready to start treatment with intrauterine insemination using their own sperm or donor sperm

BACKGROUND

As pregnancy and childbirth have long been considered women's issues and male infertility has long been surrounded by taboo, limited research has focused on the experience of infertile men. The purpose of this study was to compare male motives for parenthood, male well-being and disclosure patterns concerning the method of conception among men from couples starting treatment with IUI using their own sperm (autologous sperm recipient, ASR) or donor sperm (donor sperm recipient, DSR).

METHODS

This prospective study included 46 DSR- and 151 ASR-couples. Self-report questionnaires assessing parenthood motives, well-being and disclosure patterns concerning the method of conception were administered to both men and women prior to treatment. Unpaired T-tests and Fisher's exact tests were used to test for significant differences.

RESULTS

When compared with ASR-men, DSR-men expect more positive effects from parenthood on relationships and feelings of fulfilment, and report less negative effects of infertility on sexuality, but a lower self-image and more guilt. DSR-men plan to disclose the method of conception less frequently and have so far disclosed to a lesser degree than ASR-men.

CONCLUSIONS

DSR-men feel differently about parenthood and infertility compared with ASR-men, and their higher expectations combined with lower self-esteem need (more) attention during counselling.