The field of gamete donation for medically assisted reproduction purposes is evolving. While anonymous gamete donation was long the preferred practice, a new focus on the rights and interests of donor-conceived children has led a number of countries to shift towards an open-identity system. However, this evolution appears to overlook whether information exchange could also be of interest to the other parties involved, in particular the gamete donors. In this article, we analyse the question whether donors should be granted a right to some information about the offspring conceived by their donations. We constructed five arguments which donors could use in support of such a claim: (i) It can be of great importance to the donors' and their own children's health that they receive medical information (in particular, evidence of an unsuspected genetic disease) about the donor offspring; (ii) basic information (such as whether any children were born) could be a way to acknowledge donors for their altruistic behaviour; (iii) general information (information about the child's wellbeing) about the donor offspring could ease the donors' potential concern about and sense of responsibility for the offspring; (iv) basic information could provide an important enrichment of the donors' identities; (v) identifying information would be useful for donors who want to contact the donor offspring. No strong arguments in favour of granting donors the right to identifying information were found. An exchange of this type of information should only be accepted when all parties agree. Taken together, the four first arguments form a strong case for granting donors a right to several types of anonymous information about the donor offspring.

Objective: In this qualitative study, we investigate how lesbian couples experience and deal with the difference in genetic relatedness in their family. Background: Previous research showed that lesbian couples handle the difference with regard to genetic relatedness by, for instance, creating a narrative about physical resemblances or by focusing on the social bond and its influence on children. Methods: The findings are based on qualitative in-depth interviews with 10 lesbian couples who had at least one donor-conceived child aged 7-10. Results: The difference with regard to the genetic link brought up complex and context-specific experiences for these parents. Generally, the genetic link was described as irrelevant: equality between both parents was presented as a given. However, some experiences of difference due to the presence of one genetic link were found. In these accounts, the genetic link was described as a valuable extra that created an inequality between them as parents. Conclusion: The findings show that these mothers have a complex attitude towards genetic relatedness

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.

No abstract

No abstract