Gamete donation and anonymity

Abstract

This paper presents the case for a change from the current practice of anonymity and secrecy in the use of donated gametes in medically assisted conception. It does so by describing history of the practice, various committees of enquiry over the years, their recommendations for consideration of the children created and the need for follow-up of the outcome; presenting the evidence from outcome studies both about child development and family relationships where secrecy is maintained about the child's origin and those where the practice is openly to acknowledge their origins. This is followed by an analysis of the experience and views of these children once they are adults. In discussion of the composite findings recurring themes emerge. From this it is concluded that offspring from donated gametes should not continue to be denied knowledge of their origins and antecedents. In the public debate, four schools of thought are identified. Possible practical scenarios to implement change are discussed. This paper argues that the fundamental issue regarding any of these remains-that priority in decision-making should be the lifelong well-being of the children being created.

Secrecy, disclosure and everything in-between: decisions of parents of children conceived by donor insemination, egg donation and surrogacy

“…Some have argued that secrecy may interfere with the child’s security of attachment (Lycett et al , 2004) and in this way may have damaging consequences for the child’s psychological wellbeing. McWhinnie (2001) reviews the debate surrounding secrecy and disclosure and concludes that secrecy is not in the child’s best interests. She argues that it is not always easy to maintain the secret due to questions about medical history and family resemblance, so that, for the parents, ‘the dilemmas and evasions last a lifetime’.…”

The right to know one’s genetic origins and cross-border medically assisted reproduction

“…What underlies these notions is the idea that knowing who we are requires knowing how we came to be; that the understanding of oneself requires knowledge of where one’s characteristics and traits came from [19, 20]. …”

Regulating Gamete Donation in the U.S.: Ethical, Legal and Social Implications

“…As Vardit Ravitski, e.g., suggests, one's genetic information is tied with one's identity formation [ 4 ]. Analogizing gamete donation to adoption, this harm argument suggests that donor-conceived children can experience poor self-perception and identity crisis [ 6 , 61 ]; some have suggested that this amounts to so-called “genealogical bewilderment” [ 33 ]. Finally, the third focuses on kinship.…”

“…It is further doubtful whether knowing about one's circumstances of conception would be enough. Testimonies of some donor-conceived children suggest that knowing about their circumstances of conception but having no access to information about the donor produced anxiety and self-doubts about who they are [ 61 , 68 ]. While meeting with half-siblings through on-line listserves (such as the Donor Sibling Registry [ 69 ]) may mediate some of the frustration, the relief is only partial, suggesting that more information is needed.…”