Semen donors who are open to contact with their offspring: issues and implications for them and their families

Abstract

This study investigates the motivations, views and experiences of semen donors willing to have contact with their offspring. An online questionnaire for semen donors was posted by the US-based Donor Sibling Registry in 2009. A total of 164 respondents who had previously been donors completed the questionnaire, which consisted of 45 open and closed questions covering motivations for donating, health and medical information, experiences of donating, contact with offspring and implications of donating and contact for their families. The donors' primary motivation was to help other families, although payment was also a factor. Almost all donors were open to contact with their offspring and, where donors were partnered, three-quarters of the partners also supported possible contact. Almost one-third, however, had reservations about contact or were opposed. Two-thirds of donors' own children were interested in meeting the offspring. Contact between a donor and his offspring is often seen as a coming together of these two people only. The results of this study suggest that there are important ramifications for both of the families who become linked. Understanding gamete donation in this broader family context is crucial to the contribution that health professionals can make in this area.

Preferences and needs regarding future contact with donation offspring among identity-release gamete donors: results from the Swedish Study on Gamete Donation

“…Because the majority of donors in the present study were in a relationship and a considerable percentage of donors had moved on to a new partner since the donation, this can be also seen as a potential challenge here. Being a donor is not solely an individual contribution to giving a couple the opportunity to become parents because it may also lead to a wider constellation of relationships extended beyond the donor and the donation offspring, something that also has been highlighted in previous research (17). Donors reported different preferences regarding receiving information when an offspring requests identifying information about them.…”

“…Jadva et al (16) reported on positive experiences from meetings between the donors and the offspring, which is comforting. However, Daniels (17) revealed that the major challenge in contact between donor and offspring was the contact and relationship with the donor's own family. Because the majority of donors in the present study were in a relationship and a considerable percentage of donors had moved on to a new partner since the donation, this can be also seen as a potential challenge here.…”

“…Research on gamete donors can be categorized according to the relation between the donor and the recipient/offspring into: [1] known or personal donors who donate to a couple known to them or are recruited by an infertile couple (7,8), [2] anonymous donors (9)(10)(11)(12)(13)(14)(15), [3] donors who donated anonymously but later actively made themselves identifiable to the offspring, for example, through a voluntary contact register such as the Donor Sibling Registry (DSR) (16,17), and [4] identifiable donors who chose to donate through identity-release arrangements despite the option to donate anonymously (18) or who donate under identity-release jurisdictions (19)(20)(21)(22)(23)(24). Studies have investigated donors' demographic characteristics (9,15,25), motives for donation (9, 12, 14-18, 20, 23, 25), attitudes toward anonymity/information-sharing (9,12,15,18), and views concerning the offspring (9,14).…”

When ‘sperm’ becomes ‘donor’: Transitions in parents’ views of the sperm donor

“…Research on the experiences of donors has started to be undertaken and indicates that some semen donors continue to have thoughts and feelings that arise from their having been a donor. These include retaining an interest in those to whom they are genetically related regardless of any social contact (Crawshaw et al, 2007, Jadva et al, 2011, Daniels et al, 2012. As with the recipients ' views in this study, the meanings and experiences of donors associated with semen donation are dynamic -in other words they continue to develop and may change following donation in line with philosophical beliefs and personal and social experiences of the recipients (Daniels et al, 2005;Crawshaw et al, 2007).…”

De la procréation «assistée par» autrui à la procréation «négociée avec» autrui : Dialogue autour de la place du tiers donneur dans le projet parental de mères lesbiennes au Québec

“…Pour certains de ces hommes, le don de sperme représen-te une façon d'avoir des enfants, mais sans en avoir réellement (Almeling, 2011;Côté, 2012Côté, , 2014Daniels et al, 2012). Riggs (2008) parle alors d'un «désir d'immortalité génétique» plutôt que d'un désir de paternité.…”