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

Abstract

STUDY QUESTIONHow do single mothers who have conceived a child via anonymous or identity-release sperm donation represent the donor?SUMMARY ANSWERWhile the majority of mothers described their anonymous and identity-release donors as symbolically significant to their families, others were more likely to emphasize that their lack of information limited their thoughts about him.WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADYThere is limited understanding of the factors that impact upon how single mothers represent the donor, and whether or not they are determined by specific donor programmes (anonymous or identity-release).STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATIONQualitative interviews were conducted with 46 women who had treatment at a UK licensed fertility clinic during the years 2003–2009. Twenty mothers (43%) had used an anonymous donor, and 26 (57%) had used an identity-release donor.PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODSAmong the 46 mothers interviewed, all had at least one child conceived via donor insemination who was between the ages of 4 and 9 years. Mothers were heterosexual and were currently without a live-in and/or long-term partner. Interview data were analysed qualitatively according to the principles of thematic analysis.MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCEFindings indicated marked diversity in single mothers' representations of the donor. Most (n = 27) mothers talked about the donor as symbolically significant to family life and were likely to describe the donor as (i) a gift-giver, (ii) a gene-giver and (iii) a potential partner. Others (n = 16) talked about the donor as (i) unknown, (ii) part of a process and (iii) out of sight and out of mind. There were mothers with anonymous and identity-release donors in each group. Several mothers explained that their feelings about the donor had changed over time.LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTIONAll mothers conceived at a licensed fertility clinic in the UK. Findings are limited to individuals willing and able to take part in research on donor conception.WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGSThe study offers greater insight into the factors influencing the donor narratives produced in single-mother families. It has implications for the counselling and treatment of single women seeking fertility treatment with donor gametes in both anonymous and identity-release programmes. Given that the number of clinics offering identity-release programmes worldwide seems to be increasing, the finding that single women may have varying preferences with regard to donor type, and varying interest levels with regard to donor information, is important. It is recommended that clinicians and other fertility clinic staff guard against making assumptions about such preferences and any thoughts and feelings about the donor or donor information on the basis of marital status.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.

‘It's a bit too much fathering this seed’: the meaning-making of the sperm donor in Italian lesbian mother families

“…In contrast to the idea that distinction between anonymous and open-identity donors is not entirely helpful in understanding how single women think about the donor (Hertz, 2006;Zadeh et al, 2016) and how young donor-conceived people negotiate positions with their sperm donor in lesbian mother families (Hanssen, 2015), the present findings are in line with research that has painted a more nuanced picture of the sperm donor's meanings in female-partnered mothers (Nordqvist, 2011a;Ryan-Flood, 2005).…”

“…As also noted by recent research with different family types (Blyth et al, 2010;Indekeu et al, 2014a;Zadeh et al, 2016), especially when child's physical traits do not resemble those of the biological parent, more and more curiosity about the donor and the relevance of his existence are triggered. In this sense, in lesbian mother families what in the first instance may be likely experienced as a 'missing part' (Ehrensaft, 2008), the 'donor as a ghost', gradually has to be negotiated in his absence (Donovan, 2000).…”

Strategies to Personalize and to Depersonalize Donors When Telling about Genetic/Gestational Origins

“…that gradually (that is, as the children get older) move toward offering an understanding of the donors, in most cases, as specific people, even though they are not considered 'fathers' or 'mothers' (Zadeh et al 2016), as we have discussed elsewhere . There is no doubt that this last aspect is facilitated by the anonymity of donors, which is prescriptive in Spain, but the cases of gestational surrogacy analyzed, even though they are few in number, allow us to think that Spanish families provide themselves with resources to deal with this issue even in situations where donation is not anonymous, giving the non-anonymous donors a place in their narratives and, thus, in their lives.…”

“…In the case of SMBC, Hertz (2002) holds that these women contribute to creating an image of the father for these children mainly through their comments on possible physical similarities with him. Zadeh et al (2016), on the other hand, conclude that, just like in other groups that have used assisted reproduction treatments (Mamo 2005), the conceptions that these mothers have regarding the donor (as an 'absence-presence') have more to do with the images that the professionals of the fertility clinics transmit to them than with their own thoughts and feelings.…”

“…This is why the families who have taken the step of personalizing the anonymous donor, going beyond the previous treatment as an object, pluralization, or dehumanized individualization, complain about the lack of information that the clinic / gamete bank gives them about the donor, or are sorry that they did not demand it at the time. The mothers' / fathers' need to have this information about the donor available, just like their feelings toward the donors, varies over time (Zadeh et al 2016;Landau and Weissenberg 2010;Grace et al 2008). …”