The last vial. What it means to (aspiring) parents to use the same sperm donor for siblings

Introduction: A lot of attention has been given to the quest of parents, children and donors to find donor siblings (= half siblings who share the same donor gametes but who are born in different families). However, literature is scarce about the use of the same sperm donor for subsequent children in the same family.Methods: This study included 68 lesbian and heterosexual (aspiring) parents, recruited at the Department of Reproductive Medicine of Ghent University Hospital (Belgium). The in-depth semi-structured couple interviews were performed between October 2012 and October 2013. Data were analyzed through step-by-step inductive thematic analysis.Results: The couples showed a clear preference to use the same sperm donor for their children. The most common reasons for this preference were related to the family or sibling relationships and medical reasons. Uncertainty about the availability of the same donor over time seeped through in their stories. Most lesbian aspiring parents decided that both partners should have a genetic link with at least one child.Conclusion: The use of the same sperm donor for subsequent conceptions appeared quasi unambiguously in the interviews of the lesbian and heterosexual (aspiring) parents in our study.

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.

Donor Conception Disclosure: Directive or Non-Directive Counselling?

It is widely agreed among health professionals that couples using donor insemination should be offered counselling on the topic of donor conception disclosure. However, it is clear from the literature that there has long been a lack of agreement about which counselling approach should be used in this case: a directive or a non-directive approach. In this paper we investigate which approach is ethically justifiable by balancing the two underlying principles of autonomy (non-directive approach) and beneficence (directive approach). To overrule one principle in favour of another, six conditions should be fulfilled. We analyse the arguments in favour of the beneficence principle, and consequently, a directive approach. This analysis shows that two conditions are not met; the principle of autonomy should not be overridden. Therefore, at this moment, a directive counselling approach on donor conception disclosure cannot be ethically justified.

Open-Identity Sperm Donation: How Does Offering Donor-Identifying Information Relate to Donor-Conceived Offspring's Wishes and Needs?

Over the past years, a growing number of countries have legislated open-identity donation, in which donor-conceived offspring are given access to the donor's identity once the child has reached maturity. It is held that donor anonymity creates identity problems for such children similar to the "genealogical bewilderment" described within the adoption context. The study of the social and psychological effects of open-identity donation is still very much in its infancy, but what has been left unquestioned is whether (and to what extent) offering access to the donor's name and address is an adequate response to such effects. This study has two goals: First, we aim to provide a systematic review of the reasons why donor-conceived (DC) offspring want to know the identity of their sperm donor. Second, we examine to what extent the provision of donor-identifying information can satisfy the reasons mentioned. The most important motivations appear to be: (1) to avoid medical risks and consanguineous relationships; (2) to satisfy curiosity; (3) to learn more about the self or to complete one's identity; (4) to learn more about what kind of person the donor is (biographical information, why he donated, etc.); (5) to form a relationship with the donor and/or his family; and (6) to learn about one's ancestry/genealogy. Our analysis shows that for nearly all of these reasons access to the donor's identity is not necessary. In those cases where it is, moreover, donor identification is not sufficient. What is really needed is (extended) contact with the donor, rather than the mere provision of his name.

Recipients' views on payment of sperm donors

The aim of this qualitative study was to explore how recipients viewed payment of sperm donors. The study was conducted in Belgium, where, as in many countries, sperm donors receive recompense for their time and expenses. Face-to-face semi-structured interviews were conducted with 34 heterosexual and lesbian couples who, at the time of data collection, had at least one donor-conceived child aged 7-10 years or who were undergoing donor conception treatment. Although participants commonly described the issue of financial compensation as something that did not really concern them, all supported the idea that some level of payment was acceptable or even necessary. The participants also identified several ways in which donor payment offered advantages to their own position as (future) parents. Although the idea is commonly rehearsed that sperm donation is a gift and that monetary transaction for conception is demeaning, the participants of this study did not generally share this view. To them, a small financial return served as a symbolic acknowledgement of the donor's contribution and helped secure the type of relationship they expected from their donor. There was clearly concern, however, over high payments and the risk of attracting the wrong kind of donor.

Lesbian couples' views about and experiences of not being able to choose their sperm donor

In this qualitative study, we explore how lesbian recipients view and experience the selection of their anonymous sperm donor. The study was conducted in Belgium, where fertility centres follow a legal protocol that severely restricts personal choice in donor selection. While previous studies have shown that recipients want greater control and input in the selection of their sperm donor, this was not a main concern for most women in the present study. They generally acknowledged their lack of control on the selection outcome and accepted this as part and parcel of an anonymous donation policy that provides an opportunity to have a child. They actively and passively downplayed initial concerns about the donor selection procedure and felt they did not have or need a right to further control over the donor selection. In adopting this 'subordinate' position, they felt they should trust the hospital, which they hoped would fulfil rather high screening standards. Those who did want more choice were nuanced and careful about their motivations: they focused on selecting traits that would facilitate normal child development or increase family coherence. The findings shed light on how these patients perceive their position in this third-party reproduction setting.

Beyond sperm cells: a qualitative study on constructed meanings of the sperm donor in lesbian families

STUDY QUESTION

What meanings do lesbian couples construct regarding their sperm donor?

SUMMARY ANSWER

For some parents, the donor was increasingly presented as a person, whereas for other parents, the donor was seen as an instrument from the moment they received the sperm donation.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

Few studies specifically focus on how lesbian couples deal with the issue of third-party anonymous gamete donation. It is often assumed that they have fewer difficulties than heterosexual couples with the involvement of a male procreator, since their status as a donor conception family is 'socially visible' and there is no social father who fears exclusion.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 10 lesbian couples (20 participants), recruited via the Ghent University Hospital. All couples had at least one child, conceived through anonymous donor insemination, between 7 and 10 years old.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

Within the data corpus, a particular data set was analyzed where couples referred to their donor and his position in their family. Step-by-step inductive thematic analysis was performed resulting in themes that are grounded in the data. All phases of the analysis were followed by team discussion.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

This study reveals different donor constructs, indicating different ways of dealing with the third-party involvement in the family. Some parents diminish the role of the donor throughout family life and continue to present him as an instrument: something they needed in order to become parents. Others show an increasing interest in the donor as the children mature, which results in a more personalized account of the donor.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

In our qualitative cross-sectional study, we collected retrospectively constructed stories. Longitudinal qualitative and quantitative research is required to allow for an extrapolation of the conclusions made.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

This study shows how the concept of the donor is constructed within lesbian families and how it is challenged by the child's developing personality and features. When counseling prospective parents, it could therefore be useful to discuss the concept of the anonymous donor beyond the conception phase.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

The project was funded by the Research Fund of Ghent University, Belgium. There are no competing interests.

The right to know your genetic parents: from open-identity gamete donation to routine paternity testing

Over the years a number of countries have abolished anonymous gamete donation and shifted toward open-identity policies. Donor-conceived children are said to have a fundamental "right to know" the identity of their donor. In this article, we trace the arguments that underlie this claim and question its implications. We argue that, given the status attributed to the right to know one's gamete donor, it would be discriminatory not to extend this right to naturally conceived children with misattributed paternity. One way to facilitate this would be through routine paternity testing at birth. While this proposal is likely to raise concerns about the conflicting interests and rights of other people involved, we show that similar concerns apply to the context of open-identity gamete donation. Unless one can identify a rational basis for treating the two groups differently, one's stance toward both cases should be the same.

Donor-conceived children looking for their sperm donor: what do they want to know?

OBJECTIVE

This paper aims to gain in-depth understanding of why some donor-conceived offspring want to know the identity of their sperm donor.

METHODS

Step-by-step inductive thematic analysis was performed on first-hand quotes from donor-conceived offspring selected from a wide range of sources (including empirical studies and donor conception networks, registries and support groups).

RESULTS

We found that at least 7 different objectives can underlie the wish to know one's donor: to avoid medical risks and consanguineous relationships; to connect with one's roots; to complete one's life (hi-)story; to understand where one's traits come from; to discover or assess one's defining characteristics and capabilities; to rectify a wrong-doing, and to map out one's ancestral history.

CONCLUSION

The analysis shows that there is great variance among identity-seekers in the weight they attribute to wanting to know their donor. It is also clear that they have very different assumptions about the role and importance of genetics in terms of establishing 'who they are' or 'can become', including deterministic misconceptions. Rather than treat all donor-conceived offspring's needs as of equal concern, this analysis should help distinguish between and assess the relevance of the various motivations.

Sleep better than medicine? Ethical issues related to "wake enhancement"

This paper deals with new pharmacological and technological developments in the manipulation and curtailment of our sleep needs. While humans have used various methods throughout history to lengthen diurnal wakefulness, recent advances have been achieved in manipulating the architecture of the brain states involved in sleep. The progress suggests that we will gradually become able to drastically manipulate our natural sleep-wake cycle. Our goal here is to promote discussion on the desirability and acceptability of enhancing our control over biological sleep, by illustrating various potential attendant ethical problems. We draw attention to the risks involved, possible conflicts of interests underlying the development of wake enhancement, and the potential impact on accountability for fatigue related errors.

Earning points for moral behavior: organ allocation based on reciprocity

Anticipating the reevaluation of the Dutch organ procurement system, in late 2003 the Rathenau Institute published a study entitled 'Gift or Contribution?' In this study, the author, Govert den Hartogh, carries out a thorough moral analysis of the problem of organ shortage and fair allocation of organs. He suggests there should be a change in mentality whereby organ donation is no longer viewed in terms of charity and the volunteer spirit, but rather in terms of duty and reciprocity. The procurement and allocation of donor organs should be seen as a system of mutually assured help. Fair allocation would imply to give priority to those who recognize and comply with their duty: the registered donors. The idea of viewing organ donation as an undertaking involving mutual benefit rather than as a matter of charity, however, is not new. Notwithstanding the fact that reference to charity and altruism is not required in order for the organ donation to be of moral significance, we will argue against the reciprocity-based scenario. Steering organ allocation towards those who are themselves willing to donate organs is both an ineffective and morally questionable means of attempting to counter organ shortage.

Use of pigs for xenotransplantation: the speciesism by proxy syndrome

BACKGROUND

When questioning whether it is acceptable to use pigs as sources of xenografts, focus easily shifts to demonstrations that it is more acceptable to exploit pigs rather than primates. Both practical and ethical reasons against the use of primates do not stand when applied to the use of pigs. Consequently, use of pigs is held to be justified.

METHODS

In this paper, I examine the weaknesses that shelter within three ethical arguments commonly rehearsed in defense of choosing the pig as source animal: (a) that the use of pigs for human purposes is embedded in a long tradition; (b) that pigs are not an endangered species; and (c) that they do not share the cognitive and emotional capacities with humans to the same extent that primates do.

RESULTS

All of the arguments rest on presumptions that are themselves in need of further discussion or clarification.

CONCLUSION

Other approaches are necessary in justifying use of pigs as sources of xenografts.

To the core of porcine matter: evaluating arguments against producing transgenic pigs

BACKGROUND

The production of transgenic pigs for xenotransplantation is based on an urgent human need for transplantable organs. Although the particular genetic modifications are small and do not alter the organism phenotypically, several authors consider it to be morally problematic. In this paper we attempt to establish if there are genuine reasons to refrain from producing 'humanized' pigs.

METHODS

We distinguish between two types of ethical arguments against transgenesis often confused in debating the matter: consequentialist and inherent arguments. Whereas the first type of argument pertains to the potentially negative effects of the procedure, the second type claims that genetic engineering of animals is 'inherently' wrong; that the action itself regardless of the effects - is to be considered immoral. If this is the case, then the discussion need not be taken further. If not, then these arguments do not stand in evaluating the procedure.

RESULTS

We demonstrate that none of the claims asserting inherent wrongness of transgenesis is valid as such.

CONCLUSION

Sound resistance to producing transgenic pigs is restricted to concerns regarding the concrete effects of the applications.

Proceeding with clinical trials of animal to human organ transplantation: a way out of the dilemma

The transplantation of porcine organs to humans could in the future be a solution to the worldwide organ shortage, but is to date still highly experimental. Further research on the potential effects of crossing the species barrier is essential before clinical application is acceptable. However, many crucial questions on efficacy and safety will ultimately only be answered by well designed and controlled solid organ xenotransplantation trials on humans. This paper is concerned with the question under which conditions, given the risks involved and the ethical issues raised, such clinical trials should be resumed. An alternative means of overcoming the safety and ethical issues is suggested: willed body donation for scientific research in the case of permanent vegetative status. This paper argues that conducting trials on such bodies with prior consent is preferable to the use of human subjects without lack of brain function.