Absence or presence? Complexities in the donor narratives of single mothers using sperm donation

An investigation of racial and ethnic disparities in donor sperm availability in the United States

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether the racial and ethnic distribution of sperm donors contributing to US sperm banks differs from the demographics of the US population and those of US donor sperm recipients undergoing treatment with in vitro fertilization (IVF) and intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI).

DESIGN

Cross-sectional study.

SETTING

United States donor sperm banks, US Census, and fertility clinics reporting to the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology Clinic Outcome Reporting System.

PATIENTS

Sperm donors from 18 banks, men aged 18-39 years on the basis of the 2021 Census Current Population Survey, and recipients of donor sperm for IVF and ICSI treatments in clinics reporting to the Assisted Reproductive Technology Clinic Outcome Reporting System from January 1, 2018, to December 31, 2020.

INTERVENTION

None.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

Proportions of sperm donors and donor sperm recipients undergoing IVF and ICSI treatments identifying as each racial and ethnic group.

RESULTS

Eighteen donor sperm banks were identified, encompassing 1,503 donors. Of these donors, 60.9% identified as White compared with 55.1% of the US male population and 67.7% of donor sperm recipients. Proportions of donors identifying as Asian or 2 or more races were larger than those of US men and donor sperm recipients (Asian: 18.6% vs. 6.5%, and 18.6% vs. 10.2%; 2 or more races: 11.6% vs. 2.2%, and 11.6% vs. 1.7%). In contrast, Black donors were underrepresented when compared with the US population of men and donor sperm recipients (2.8% vs. 12.9% and 2.8% vs. 13.0%). Hispanic donors were underrepresented when compared with the US population of men (6.0% vs. 22.2%). The percentages of Hispanic sperm donors and donor sperm recipients were similar (6.0% vs. 7.0%).

CONCLUSION

The racial and ethnic distribution of sperm donors differs significantly from the demographics of the US male population and donor sperm recipients undergoing IVF and ICSI treatments. These findings suggest a need for targeted recruitment efforts for Black sperm donors.

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.

Single fathers' experiences of using egg donation and surrogacy to start a family

STUDY QUESTION

What are the experiences of single men using egg donation and surrogacy as a route to parenthood?

SUMMARY ANSWER

The fathers mainly had a positive relationship with the surrogate and simultaneously exercised agency, and experienced challenges, during the process of surrogacy.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

Little is known about single men's experiences of egg donation and surrogacy arrangements. Studies have focused on single men's decision-making processes about the use of surrogacy and family functioning once these families are formed. Questions remain about how fathers experience and navigate the process of surrogacy as a single man.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

The study is an international, in-depth qualitative study of fathers who chose to begin a family and parent alone. Data were collected between 2018 and 2021 as part of a larger study of solo fathers with different routes to parenthood. The present study reports on 21 fathers who used surrogacy and egg donation to begin their family. The average age of the fathers was 44 years, the fathers had young children aged 6 years or younger, and lived in countries across Australia, Europe, and North America.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

Purposive sampling was used to recruit participants. In-depth semi-structured interviews were conducted. Interview topics included fathers' experiences of the process of using egg donation and surrogacy, and navigating the relationship with the surrogate. The audio-recorded interviews lasted around 2 hours and were subsequently transcribed verbatim.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

Data were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis and qualitative content analysis. Most of the fathers chose an identifiable egg donor. Regarding the relationship with the surrogate, many fathers had remained in contact with her, but to differing degrees, and they generally reported positive relationships. Thematic analysis led to the identification of three themes relating to the fathers' experiences of choosing surrogacy as a single man: the ability to make choices; challenges and constraints; and special relationship.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

Due to the variation between different countries regarding laws on surrogacy, contextual factors may have impacted on the experiences of single fathers, and the sample size was small. However, the research provides new insights into an area with little academic literature.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

Given the growing trend of single men having children through surrogacy, the findings suggest that this new path to parenthood can be both rewarding and challenging. Single men may benefit from tailored support and counselling to help them navigate the surrogacy journey.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

This study was funded by the Wellcome Trust (grant number 208013/Z/17/Z). The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

n/a.

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.

Good practice recommendations for information provision for those involved in reproductive donation†

STUDY QUESTION

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

SUMMARY ANSWER

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

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

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

STUDY DESIGN SIZE DURATION

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

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS SETTING METHODS

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

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

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

LIMITATIONS REASONS FOR CAUTION

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

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

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

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS

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

DISCLAIMER

This document represents the views of ESHRE, which are the result of consensus between the relevant ESHRE stakeholders and where relevant based on the scientific evidence available at the time of preparation. The recommendations should be used for informational and educational purposes. They should not be interpreted as setting a standard of care, or be deemed inclusive of all proper methods of care nor exclusive of other methods of care reasonably directed to obtaining the same results. They do not replace the need for application of clinical judgement to each individual presentation, nor variations based on locality and facility type. †ESHRE pages content is not externally peer reviewed. The manuscript has been approved by the Executive Committee of ESHRE.

Parents' experiences telling children conceived by gamete and embryo donation about their genetic origins

Objective

To gain an in-depth understanding of parents' experiences telling children conceived by gamete and embryo donation about their genetic origins.

Design

Qualitative, descriptive.

Setting

Families' homes.

Patients

Gamete or embryo donation recipient parents living in the United States and who told their children, from birth to 16 years, about their genetic origins.

Interventions

Individual semistructured (n = 12) or dyadic (n = 2) parent interviews.

Main Outcome Measures

Directed qualitative content analysis.

Results

Fourteen families that comprised 16 gamete or embryo donation recipient parents and represented 24 donor-conceived children between the ages of 4 months and 16 years participated in the study. Single parents (n = 3) and both parents in most two-parent families (n = 9) led the initial telling conversations. Parents recounted personal short stories using language that was both developmentally and medically appropriate. Multiple strategies, including children's books, were used by parents to aid them in their telling. The oldest donor-conceived children in each family were first informed of their genetic origins at birth (n = 10 families) or at 6 months (n = 1 family; "practice runs") or from 3.5 to 12 years (n = 3 families). The telling conversations took place during routine family activities that naturally brought parents and children in close proximity, usually in the home.

Conclusions

Awareness of the nuances of parents' telling conversations with their children through the age of 16 years can help guide clinical counseling and the development of tools to aid parents in their telling conversations.

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.

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.

Managing absence and presence of child-parent resemblance: a challenge for heterosexual couples following sperm donation

This qualitative interview study sought to gather and better understand heterosexual parents' experiences of managing resemblance and non-resemblance between child and parent in an identity-release donor programme. The 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 30 heterosexual parents with children aged 7-8 years following identity-release sperm donation, participated in individual semi-structured interviews. This study concerns a secondary analysis of the interview data. The results show how donor-conceiving parents experience the presence and absence of child-parent resemblance, and how they navigate between the importance of genetic connectedness and of 'doing parenthood' through social interactions. The analysis resulted in three categories: 'resemblance through nature or nurture', 'non-resemblance brings the donor to the front' and 'feelings about and coping with resemblance talk'. The first two categories deal with the intrapersonal aspects of physical and non-physical resemblance, while the last category includes aspects of resemblance in relation to persons outside the core family. The presence or absence of parent-child resemblance regarding both physical and non-physical characteristics appears to constitute a considerable challenge for heterosexual couples with school-aged children following sperm donation.

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

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

Counsellors' practices in donor sperm treatment

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

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

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

Why search for a sperm donor online? The experiences of women searching for and contacting sperm donors on the internet

Whilst studies have examined the experiences of women who use clinic donors, to date there has been limited research investigating women’s motivations and experiences of searching for a sperm donor online. A total of 429 women looking for a sperm donor on Pride Angel (a website that facilitates contact between donors and recipients) completed an online survey. Fifty-eight percent (249) saw advantages of obtaining donated sperm online with the most common advantage reported as being able to connect with and meet the donor (n = 50 (24%)). A third (n = 157 (37%)) of the participants gave disadvantages, the most common reported was encountering ‘dishonest donors’ (n = 63 (40%)). Most recipients (n = 181 (61%)) wanted the donor to be ‘just a donor’ (i.e. to provide sperm and have no further contact). Whilst it was important for recipients to know the identity of the donor, some did not see this as important for the child and thus the level of information that parents have about the donor, and that which the child has, can differ. Finding a donor online blurs the distinction between categories of ‘anonymous’, ‘known’ and ‘identity release’ donations. Whilst the survey had a large sample size, the representativeness of the sample is not known.

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

STUDY QUESTION

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

SUMMARY ANSWER

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

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

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

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

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

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

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

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

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

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

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

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

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

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

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

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

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