Positioning the donor in a new landscape—mothers’ and fathers’ experiences as their adult children obtained information about the identity-release sperm donor

Widbom, Andreas; Isaksson, Stina; Sydsjö, Gunilla; Svanberg, Agneta Skoog; Lampic, Claudia

doi:10.1093/humrep/deab146

Cited by 15 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 40 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Parents should understand that the disclosure of birth via DC to the offspring at an early age might contribute to a better development of their offspring’s identity; survey responses indicated that parents who understand this started such disclosures sooner [ 36 ]. Another study revealed that some parents of offspring conceived with donor sperm consider the donor as separate from the family; however, the rearing fathers’ role as a parent can be challenged when the adult offspring receive identifying information about the sperm donor [ 37 ]. In addition to the aforementioned practical difficulties in handling donor anonymity, these ethical issues surrounding the identity of donor-conceived offspring suggest that a shift to non-anonymous DC should be socially useful and that the existing non-anonymous DC system also needs to be reconsidered in order to help parents disclose DC to offspring.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Shifting to a model of donor conception that entails a communication agreement among the parents, donor, and offspring

Ishii

Beriaín

2022

BMC Med Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Some persons conceived with donor gametes react negatively when they found their birth via donor conception. They request access to information about and seek to communicate with the donor. However, some countries mandate donor anonymity. Other countries allow donor-conceived persons to access donor information, but they can only use this access if their parents have disclosed donor conception to them. We investigated a thorny issue of donor conception: whether donor conception should be shifted from an anonymous basis to a non-anonymous basis. Methods We review the issues and concerns regarding donor conception. We then consider the impact of direct-to-consumer genetic testing on donor conception, as well as the influence of donor conception on offspring’s identity and the potential of different types of donors. To discuss the future policy of donor conception, the policies on the anonymity of gamete donors were investigated using publicly-available documents in 15 countries. Results The aim of mandating donor anonymity is to protect the privacy of the donor and intended parents. However, the diffusion of direct-to-consumer genetic testing may make it impossible to maintain anonymity. Birth via donor conception shapes the offspring’s identity, and the donor may further influence the development of offspring’s identity through communications. It remains important to disclose donor conception to donor-conceived offspring and to provide them with donor information. However, that information might be insufficient for some donor-conceived persons. Here are benefits to having open-identity donors and known donors. Such donors can make an agreement with the parents regarding future communication with the offspring, although both sides should respect privacy. Subsequent counseling for all parties involved can result in better tripartite communication agreements. Conclusions In sum, ethical and practical issues that complicate donor anonymity are driving a shift to non-anonymous donor conception, in which all parties come to a communication agreement. To pave the way for such a donor conception system, transitional measures can be put into place. For countries that already adopted non-anonymous donor conception, ensuring the communication agreements is important to protect the rights of parents, donor, and offspring.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Shifting to a model of donor conception that entails a communication agreement among the parents, donor, and offspring

Ishii

Beriaín

2022

BMC Med Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The large majority of participants were living with the co-parent of the donor-conceived child. Participants' demographics have previously been reported (Lampic et al, 2021) and are presented in TABLE 1. Responders and non-responders at the fourth wave were compared with regard to disclosure intentions and behaviour assessment when the children were 1-4 years of age (Isaksson et al, 2012), and no significant group differences were found (data not shown).…”

Section: Participantsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Heterosexual couples have been shown to be less likely to disclose their use of sperm donation to their children (Beeson et al, 2011;Freeman et al, 2016) and to express concerns about the impact of disclosure (Blake et al, 2010;Readings et al, 2011;Widbom et al, 2021). In comparison, single women and same-sex female couples tend to be open with their children about their conception with donor spermatozoa as they need to explain the absence of a father in the family (Appleby et al, 2012).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In comparison, single women and same-sex female couples tend to be open with their children about their conception with donor spermatozoa as they need to explain the absence of a father in the family (Appleby et al, 2012). In line with this, heterosexual-couple parents have expressed worry about the potential negative impact on the parent-child relationship, particularly concerning the relationship with the non-genetic father (Golombok et al, 2002;Scheib et al, 2003;Widbom et al, 2021). In view of the apparent challenges for heterosexual donor-conceiving couples and the ongoing debate about the benefits and risks of disclosure, it is important to consider the consequences of these parents' disclosure for family well-being and functioning.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Psychological adjustment in disclosing and non-disclosing heterosexual-couple families following conception with oocytes or spermatozoa from identity-release donors

Widbom

Sydsjö

Lampic

2022

Reproductive BioMedicine Online

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…However, a third told only their mother and free-text comments suggest that this decision may have been related to worry that it might upset the father. Indeed, findings from a recent interview study with sperm donation parents indicate that adult offspring’s interest in the donor’s identity could challenge the father’s position, and trigger emotions related to his infertility ( Widbom et al , 2021 ). Further studies are needed to explore parents’ as well as identity-release donors’ experiences of contact between the donor and offspring from their donation.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

National survey of donor-conceived individuals who requested information about their sperm donor—experiences from 17 years of identity releases in Sweden

et al. 2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Positioning the donor in a new landscape—mothers’ and fathers’ experiences as their adult children obtained information about the identity-release sperm donor

Cited by 15 publications

References 40 publications

Shifting to a model of donor conception that entails a communication agreement among the parents, donor, and offspring

Shifting to a model of donor conception that entails a communication agreement among the parents, donor, and offspring

Psychological adjustment in disclosing and non-disclosing heterosexual-couple families following conception with oocytes or spermatozoa from identity-release donors

National survey of donor-conceived individuals who requested information about their sperm donor—experiences from 17 years of identity releases in Sweden

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About