Working with previously anonymous gamete donors and donor-conceived adults: recent practice experiences of running the Dna-based voluntary information exchange and contact register, UK Donorlink

Perspectives on sperm donor anonymity: insights from donor-conceived adults in Belgium

STUDY QUESTION

Are donor-conceived adults in Belgium interested in obtaining donor information, and do these interests vary based on their family backgrounds?

SUMMARY ANSWER

Donor-conceived adults express a significant interest in obtaining donor-related information, with the highest interest reported by offspring from heterosexual couples compared to those from lesbian couple-parented or single-parent families.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

In Belgium, sperm donation is mainly anonymous, but the rise of direct-to-consumer genetic testing challenges this anonymity.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

This was a cross-sectional study involving an online nationwide survey conducted from July 2022 to October 2023. Participants, aged 18 years and older and being aware of their anonymous sperm donor-conceived status, were recruited through various channels.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

A total of 203 participants were included: 62.6% grew up in heterosexual families with infertile fathers, 26.1% with lesbian couples, 8.4% with single parents, and 3.0% in various or diverse family structures. The survey was available in both French and Dutch and consisted of 43 questions, including a mix of yes/no questions and multiple-choice items.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

The average age of disclosure was 16.5 years, with notably later disclosure in heterosexual couple-parented households. A substantial 82.8% of donor-conceived individuals expressed a keen interest in obtaining non-personally identifiable donor information, while 69% were curious about personally identifiable donor data. Furthermore, 61.6% conveyed a desire for personal contact with their donors, and 26.6% advocated for the inclusion of the donor's name on their birth certificates. Participants raised in lesbian two-parent families exhibited the lowest level of interest in donor-related information compared with those raised in other family structures. An overwhelming 90.1% wondered about the possibility of having half-siblings from the same sperm donor. Analysis of survey responses on DNA database registration revealed that 55.2% of donor-conceived offspring were already registered, with 68.8% discovering the same donor offspring and 30.4% successfully locating their donors. Compared to individuals from other family structures, those raised in heterosexual couple-parented households exhibit a less positive attitude toward their conception through anonymous sperm donation. About 61.6% of donor-conceived individuals reported experiencing distinct emotions compared to their peers, while 44.1% encountered psychological difficulties related to anonymous sperm donation, primarily attributed to late disclosure. The majority supported the idea of informing the donor about the number of children he facilitated to conceive. Lastly, the study highlighted that 21.2% of donor-conceived adults considered becoming donors themselves, and 31.3% expressed willingness to use an anonymous donor whenever faced with fertility challenges.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

Our sample size may not fully represent all adults conceived through anonymous sperm donation in Belgium. Participation bias may have influenced the results, especially due to the overrepresentation of participants from heterosexual couples. Additionally, an association exists between individuals raised by heterosexual couples and late disclosure, complicating the analysis by introducing a confounding factor.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

The findings of this study contribute to a better understanding of the needs and preferences of donor-conceived adults, with significant potential impact on patient education and healthcare policy.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

Study funding was not obtained for this research. There are no conflicts of interest to disclose.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

N/A.

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

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

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.

Being a donor-child: wishes for parental support, peer support and counseling

OBJECTIVES

We aimed at exploring the wishes of Dutch donor-conceived offspring for parental support, peer support and counseling and sought to contribute to the improvement of health care for all parties involved with assisted reproductive technologies.

METHODS

We held semi-structured in-depth interviews with 24 donor-conceived offspring (M_age = 26.9, range 17-41) born within father-mother, two-mother and single mother families. The majority of the donor offspring was conceived with semen of anonymous donors. All offspring were recruited by network organizations and snowball sampling. The interviews were fully transcribed and analyzed using the constant comparative method.

RESULTS

Donor-conceived offspring wished that their parents had talked openly about donor conception and had missed parental support. They wished that their parents would have received counseling before donor sperm treatment on how to talk with their children about donor conception in several stages of life. They valued the availability of peer contact to exchange stories with other donor-conceived offspring and would have liked assistance in getting access to trustworthy information about characteristics and identifying information of their donor. Donor-conceived offspring wished to know where to find specialist counseling when needed.

CONCLUSIONS

Peer support and counseling by professionals for donor-conceived offspring should be available for those who need it. The findings also support professional counseling for intended parents before treatment to improve parental support for donor-children.

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

BACKGROUND

Anonymity remains the more common practice in gamete donations, but legislation prohibiting anonymity with a goal of protecting donor-conceived children's right to know their genetic origins is becoming more common. However, given the dearth of research investigating the function of anonymity for donors and recipients, it is unclear whether these policies will accomplish their goals. The aim of this study was to explore experiences with anonymity among oocyte donors and recipients who participated in an anonymous donor oocyte program and to understand the ways in which anonymity functions for them.

METHODS

Semistructured interviews were conducted with 50 women: 28 oocyte donors and 22 recipients who were recruited from an academic center for reproductive medicine in the United States.

RESULTS

Donors and recipients view anonymity both as a mechanism to protect the interests of all parties (recipients, donors, and donor-conceived children) and as a point of conflict. Specifically, three key areas were identified where both donors and recipients saw anonymity as having an important role: relieving anxieties about family structures and obligations; protecting their interests and those of donor-conceived children (while acknowledging where interests conflict); and managing the future.

CONCLUSION

As gamete donation increasingly moves away from the practice of anonymity, examining why anonymity matters to stakeholders will be helpful in devising strategies to successfully implement identity-release options.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHOD

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Secrets and disclosure in donor conception

This article considers the disclosure, sharing and exchange of information on being donor conceived within families, drawing on data from a study undertaken with donor-conceived adults registered with UK Donor Link (a voluntary DNA-linking register). This paper considers the narratives of how respondents found out they were donor-conceived and what events triggered disclosure of this information. This paper then goes on to examine the role secrecy played in their family life and uses the concept of 'display' to explore how secrecy affected their relationships with their immediate and extended family. Secrets are notoriously 'leaky' and we found complex patterns of knowing and uncertainty about whom in the family knew that the person was donor-conceived. We argue that what is kept secret and from whom provides insights into the multifaceted web of social relationships that can be created by donor-conception, and how knowledge can be managed and controlled in attempts to display and maintain family narratives of biogenetic connection.

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

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

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.

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

STUDY QUESTION

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

SUMMARY ANSWER

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

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

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

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

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

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

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

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

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

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

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

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

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

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS

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

Emerging models for facilitating contact between people genetically related through donor conception: a preliminary analysis and discussion

Previous research indicates interest among some donor-conceived people, donors and recipient parents in having contact. Outcomes of such contact appear largely, but not universally, positive. This paper seeks to understand better the characteristics of associated support services. Information gathered using the authors' direct experiences and professional and personal networks in different parts of the world indicates the emergence of four main groupings: (i) publically funded services outside of treatment centers; (ii) services provided by fertility treatment or gamete bank services; (iii) services provided privately by independent psychosocial or legal practitioners; and (4) services organized by offspring and/or recipient parents. Key operational features examined were: (i) who can access such services and when; (ii) what professional standards and funding are in place to provide them; and (iii) how 'matching' and contact processes are managed. Differences appear influenced variously by the needs of those directly affected, local policies, national legislation and the interests of the fertility services which recruit gamete donors and/or deliver donor conception treatments. The paper is intended to inform fuller debate about how best to meet the needs of those seeking information and contact, the implications for the way that fertility treatment and gametes donation services are currently provided and future research needs.

A qualitative study exploring counselling for release of information to participants of a donor-assisted conception programme

Worldwide, donor-assisted conceptions are increasing with legislative reforms in some countries providing opportunities for participants of a donor-assisted conception programme, i.e. recipients, donors, donor-conceived adults and their genetically related siblings and half-siblings, to access information. Whilst policy and practice for accessing donor-identifying information vary, there has been no research exploring the perceptions and experiences of those who provide the service. This study aimed to explore the perceptions and experiences of Australian and New Zealand infertility counsellors who provide counselling for release of information to participants of a donor-assisted conception programme. Using a qualitative research design, in-depth interview data of six infertility counsellors were thematically analysed to identify key themes. We report the primary themes that emerged from the data which include professional perspectives on the role of counsellor in the counselling process, the professional and societal responsibility to provide counselling, and influences on professional practice. Findings from this qualitative study can be used as a platform for larger international studies on the clinical practice of donor information release and to inform clinical practice and service delivery. The implications of these results for policy and future longitudinal research are also discussed.

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

STUDY QUESTION

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

SUMMARY ANSWER

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

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

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

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

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

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

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

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

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

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

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

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

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

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

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

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

Not applicable.

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

STUDY QUESTION

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

SUMMARY ANSWER

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

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

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

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

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

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

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

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

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

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

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

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

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

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS

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

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

Not applicable.