Past semen donors' views about the use of a voluntary contact register

Experiences and attitudes of Danish men who were sperm donors more than 10 years ago; a qualitative interview study

BACKGROUND

More knowledge about the long-term impact of sperm donation is essential as the donor's attitude towards donation may change over time. Personal and social developments may prompt a rethinking of previous actions and decisions, or even regret. Thus, the aim of this study was to explore the experiences and attitudes of men who were sperm donors more than 10 years ago.

METHODS

From May to September 2021, semi-structured, qualitative interviews were conducted with 23 former donors (> 10 years since last donation) from Cryos International sperm bank. Two participants were non-anonymous donors and 21 were anonymous. The interviews were conducted by phone or via video (mean 24 minutes). All interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim and rendered anonymous. Data were analyzed using thematic analysis.

RESULTS

The analysis showed that most men had been donors for monetary and altruistic purposes, and now considered sperm donation as a closed chapter that was 'unproblematic and in the past'. Most men valued anonymity and emphasized the non-relatedness between donor and donor conceived offspring. Knowledge about recipients and donor offspring was seen as 'damaging' as it could create unwanted feelings of relatedness and responsibility towards them. All men acknowledged donor conceived persons' potential interests in knowing about their genetic heritage in order to understand appearance and personal traits, but also emphasized the donors' rights to anonymity. Potential breach of anonymity was generally considered 'highly problematic' as it was expected to disturb their families and force a relationship on them.

CONCLUSION

This study reports on former donors who might not have volunteered for research due to lack of interest or protection of privacy. The majority of men valued anonymity and clearly demarcated a line between sperm donation and fatherhood, which was enforced by not knowing about the donor offspring or recipients.

OUP accepted manuscript

STUDY QUESTION

What information and support should be offered to donors, intended parents and donor-conceived people, in general and in consideration of the availability of direct-to-consumer genetic testing and matching services?

SUMMARY ANSWER

For donors, intended parents and donor-conceived offspring, recommendations are made that cover information needs and informed consent, psychosocial implications and disclosure.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

Trends indicate that the use of donor-assisted conception is growing and guidance is needed to help these recipients/intended parents, the donors and offspring, navigate the rapidly changing environment in which donor-assisted conception takes place.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

A working group (WG) collaborated on writing recommendations based, where available, on evidence collected from a literature search and expert opinion. Draft recommendations were published for stakeholder review and adapted where relevant based on the comments received.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

Papers retrieved from PUBMED were included from 1 January 2014 up to 31 August 2020, focusing on studies published since direct-to-consumer genetic testing has become more widespread and accessible. The current paper is limited to reproductive donation performed in medically assisted reproduction (MAR) centres (and gamete banks): donation outside the medical context was not considered.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

In total, 32 recommendations were made for information provision and support to donors, 32 for intended parents and 27 for donor-conceived offspring requesting information/support.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

The available evidence in the area of reproductive donation is limited and diverse with regards to the context and types of donation. General conclusions and recommendations are largely based on expert opinion and may need to be adapted in light of future research.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

These recommendations provide guidance to MAR centres and gamete banks on good practice in information provision and support but should also be considered by regulatory bodies and policymakers at a national and international level to guide regulatory and legislative efforts towards the protection of donors and donor-conceived offspring.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

The development of this good practice paper was funded by European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE), covering expenses associated with the WG meetings, the literature searches and dissemination. The WG members did not receive any payment. The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

DISCLAIMER

This document represents the views of ESHRE, which are the result of consensus between the relevant ESHRE stakeholders and where relevant based on the scientific evidence available at the time of preparation.

The recommendations should be used for informational and educational purposes. They should not be interpreted as setting a standard of care, or be deemed inclusive of all proper methods of care nor exclusive of other methods of care reasonably directed to obtaining the same results. They do not replace the need for application of clinical judgement to each individual presentation, nor variations based on locality and facility type.

^†ESHRE pages content is not externally peer reviewed. The manuscript has been approved by the Executive Committee of ESHRE.

Meeting multiple same-donor offspring: psychosocial challenges

Debates regarding donor-conceived people's rights to genetic information have caused some jurisdictions to abolish donor anonymity. Moreover, voluntary services have been established whose primary focus is providing possibilities to find information about the donor. A less discussed consequence is that donor-conceived people also find information about donor half-siblings: people conceived through the same donor. In the recent climate of openness and online DNA tests, there is an increased chance of finding multiple donor half-siblings. This study explored how donor-conceived people experience meeting multiple same-donor offspring in a group setting. Second, the study investigated donor-conceived people's need for support when meeting multiple donor half-siblings. A qualitative approach was used. Nineteen donor-conceived offspring who participated in donor half-sibling network meetings were interviewed. Using a grounded theory approach three themes were identified regarding group aspects: (i) defining group membership; (ii) regulating closeness and distance; and (iii) managing group dynamics. Professional support needs in relation to these themes were also analysed. While establishing relationships between donor half-siblings are viewed as generally more beneficial than connecting with a donor, this study showed that these new relationships also come with their challenges, and counselling may need to be refined towards a more specific same donor-offspring relationships' framework.

Un/familiar connections: on the relevance of a sociology of personal life for exploring egg and sperm donation

In recent decades, reproductive medicine has become a widespread global phenomenon. Within the field, donor conception, and the use of donated eggs, sperm or embryos from a third party, plays a key role. Despite the importance of those individuals who donate, there has been scant research exploring their experiences. Seeking to contribute to the growing, albeit still small, body of research on donors, this paper advocates bringing the process of donating into dialogue with a sociology of personal life. It suggests that important new insights about the donor experience can be achieved by utilising such a theoretical perspective. The paper applies a broad framework of a sociology of personal life to demonstrate that the decision to donate reverberates within donors' everyday lives and relationships, and explores, primarily theoretically, how it is that acts of donation bring such issues into play. To this end, the paper examines in detail three ways in which donating interacts with dimensions that are integral to personal life: "living" genetic connectedness, relationality and the intimate body. Ultimately, the paper suggests that a sociology of personal life shows light on new, unexplored questions for this field that demand greater scholarly attention.

Gamete donors' reasons for, and expectations and experiences of, registration with a voluntary donor linking register

This paper reports on a study of the views and experiences of 21 sperm donors and five egg donors registered with UK DonorLink (UKDL), a voluntary DNA-based contact register established to facilitate contact between adults who wish to identify and locate others to whom they are genetically related following donor conception. Specifically, the paper examines donors' reasons for searching for, or making information about themselves available to donor-conceived offspring. Their expectations of registration with UKDL, experiences of being registered and finally, the experiences of those who had contacted donor-conceived offspring and other genetic relatives are investigated. While most respondents reported largely positive experiences of registration, the study found significant issues relating to concerns about donation, DNA testing, possible linking with offspring and expectations of any relationship that might be established with offspring that have implications for support, mediation and counselling. Research that puts the experiences, perceptions and interests of gamete donors as the central focus of study is a relatively recent phenomenon. This study contributes to this debate and highlights directions for future research in this area.

Emerging models for facilitating contact between people genetically related through donor conception: a preliminary analysis and discussion

Previous research indicates interest among some donor-conceived people, donors and recipient parents in having contact. Outcomes of such contact appear largely, but not universally, positive. This paper seeks to understand better the characteristics of associated support services. Information gathered using the authors' direct experiences and professional and personal networks in different parts of the world indicates the emergence of four main groupings: (i) publically funded services outside of treatment centers; (ii) services provided by fertility treatment or gamete bank services; (iii) services provided privately by independent psychosocial or legal practitioners; and (4) services organized by offspring and/or recipient parents. Key operational features examined were: (i) who can access such services and when; (ii) what professional standards and funding are in place to provide them; and (iii) how 'matching' and contact processes are managed. Differences appear influenced variously by the needs of those directly affected, local policies, national legislation and the interests of the fertility services which recruit gamete donors and/or deliver donor conception treatments. The paper is intended to inform fuller debate about how best to meet the needs of those seeking information and contact, the implications for the way that fertility treatment and gametes donation services are currently provided and future research needs.

Evolving minimum standards in responsible international sperm donor offspring quota

An international working group was established with the aim of making recommendations on the number of offspring for a sperm donor that should be allowable in cases of international use of his sperm. Considerations from genetic, psychosocial, operational and ethical points of view were debated. For these considerations, it was assumed that current developments in genetic testing and Internet possibilities mean that, now, all donors are potentially identifiable by their offspring, so no distinction was made between anonymous and non-anonymous donation. Genetic considerations did not lead to restrictive limits (indicating that up to 200 offspring or more per donor may be acceptable except in isolated social-minority situations). Psychosocial considerations on the other hand led to proposals of rather restrictive limits (10 families per donor or less). Operational and ethical considerations did not lead to more or less concrete limits per donor, but seemed to lie in-between those resulting from the aforementioned ways of viewing the issue. In the end, no unifying agreed figure could be reached; however the consensus was that the number should never exceed 100 families. The conclusions of the group are summarized in three recommendations.

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

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the attitudes and preferences regarding future contact with donation offspring among identity-release donors of oocytes or sperm.

DESIGN

Longitudinal cohort study.

SETTING

University-based fertility clinics in Sweden.

PATIENT(S)

A total of 210 women and men were questioned 5-8 years after their donation of oocytes or sperm.

INTERVENTION(S)

Questionnaires given to donors prior to their donation and 5-8 years after donation.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

Donors' attitudes and preferences regarding future contact with their donation offspring.

RESULT(S)

A majority of identity-release oocyte (65%) and sperm (70%) donors were positive toward being contacted by an offspring of mature age. More than half wanted to be notified by the clinic when an offspring requested information about them, but about a third were negative toward receiving this information. One in four reported a need for counseling regarding future contact with an offspring.

CONCLUSION(S)

Several years after donation, a majority of identity-release oocyte and sperm donors show positive attitudes toward future contact with their offspring. Donors appear to have different preferences for information and support regarding such contact. Fertility clinics and health-care services should provide counseling regarding contact with an offspring to the donors who express a need for this.

When 'sperm' becomes 'donor': transitions in parents' views of the sperm donor

Abstract Little is known about recipients' views of their sperm donor. This study aimed to examine the possible transitions or consistencies in donor sperm recipients' (DSRs') view on the sperm donor over time. A longitudinal qualitative study of 19 Belgian heterosexual DSRs was undertaken. Interviews took place with both partners of the couple during pregnancy, at birth and 1.5-2 years after birth, and were analysed using a grounded theory approach. Recipients who intended to disclose exhibited a transition in their awareness of the donor from being of minimal importance to one who was increasingly seen as part of their family narrative. This was partly triggered by the offspring's life, remarks about resemblance and the socio-cultural context. The perceived position of the donor changed for most recipients from a threatening rival to a 'distractor'. This change was supported by the emerging father-child bond and the confidence that stemmed from it. These observations were applicable to those recipients who intended to disclose their donor conception; for those recipients who intended not to disclose, little or no transition was observed. This study describes and analyses the transitions and consistencies in recipients' views of the donor over different stages of the family life-cycle (pregnancy, birth, toddler stage) and could help the fertility clinics tailor their counselling to the specific stages of parenthood.

Gamete donors' expectations and experiences of contact with their donor offspring

STUDY QUESTION

What are the expectations and experiences of anonymous gamete donors about contact with their donor offspring?

SUMMARY ANSWER

Rather than consistently wanting to remain distant from their donor offspring, donors' expectations and experiences of contact with donor offspring ranged from none to a close personal relationship.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

Donor conception is part of assisted reproduction in many countries, but little is known about its continuing influence on gamete donors' lives.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

A qualitative research model appropriate for understanding participants' views was employed; semi-structured interviews were conducted during January–March 2013.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

Before 1998, gamete donors in Victoria, Australia, were subject to evolving legislation that allowed them to remain anonymous or (from 1988) to consent to the release of identifying information. An opportunity to increase knowledge of donors' expectations and experiences of contact with their donor offspring recently arose in Victoria when a recommendation was made to introduce mandatory identification of donors on request from their donor offspring, with retrospective effect. Pre-1998 donors were invited through an advertising campaign to be interviewed about their views, experiences and expectations; 36 sperm donors and 6 egg donors participated.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

This research is unusual in achieving participation by donors who would not normally identify themselves to researchers or government inquiries. Qualitative thematic analysis revealed that most donors did not characterize themselves as parents of their donor offspring. Donors' expectations and experiences of contact with donor offspring ranged from none to a close personal relationship.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

It is not possible to establish whether participants were representative of all pre-1998 donors.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

Anonymous donors' needs and desires are not homogeneous; policy and practice should be sensitive and responsive to a wide range of circumstances and preferences. Decisions made to restrict or facilitate contact or the exchange of information have ramifications for donors as well as for donor-conceived people.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

The study was funded by the Victorian Department of Health. The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

Not applicable.

Donor identification 'kills gamete donation'? A response

Two Australian government inquiries have recently called for the release of information to donor-conceived people about their gamete donors. A national inquiry, recommended 'as a matter of priority' that uniform legislation to be passed nationwide. A state-based inquiry argued that all donor-conceived people should have access to information and called for the enactment of retrospective legislation that would override donor anonymity. This paper responds to an opinion piece published in Human Reproduction in October 2012 by Professor Pennings in which he criticized such recommendations and questioned the motives of people that advocate for information release. I answer the arguments of Pennings, and argue that all parties affected by donor conception should be considered, and a compromise reached. The contact veto system is one such compromise. I discuss the education and support services recommended by the Victorian government and question Pennings' assertions that legislation enabling information release will lead to a decrease in gamete donation. Finally, I rebut Pennings' assertion that there is a 'hidden agenda' behind the call for information release. There is no such agenda in my work. If there is from others, then it is their discriminatory views that need to be addressed, not the move toward openness and honesty or the call for information by donor-conceived people.

Producing sperm, egg and embryo donors' pen portraits and other personal information for later use by donor offspring: an exploratory study of professional practices

This study considered professional input into collecting personalized donor information for later release to donor offspring. Existing studies report the importance of such information for identity completion, to satisfy curiosity, and to allay anxiety about genetic inheritance. The study used a three-pronged approach: a literature search of professional practices in this and related fields; key informant telephone interviews with donor-conceived adults, sperm and egg donors, and professionals and a postal survey of UK clinics' practices and views. The literature revealed only one previous study, which suggested gendered approaches to pen portraits were used in commercial donor banks. Key informants agreed on the importance of information for offspring well-being and the need for support services in its compilation and on release. Donors reported inadequate professional assistance to date. The postal survey of clinics revealed variable practices in the process of acquiring and storing later life information and variable success in achieving its completion. Respondents identified factors that hinder completion (donor anxiety, lack of guidance, shortage of staff time) and factors that help (donor belief in the importance of later life information, staff belief, dedicated staff time). Further research, including intervention studies, is needed into the processes and skills involved in collecting later life information.

Sperm and oocyte donors' experiences of anonymous donation and subsequent contact with their donor offspring

BACKGROUND

This study examined the motivations and experiences of anonymous donors who decide to make themselves open to contact with their donor offspring.

METHODS

Online questionnaires were completed by 63 sperm donors and 11 oocyte donors recruited via the Donor Sibling Registry (http://www.donorsiblingregistry.com/), a US-based international registry that facilitates contact between donor-conceived offspring and their donors.

RESULTS

Donors' main reasons for donating were financial payment and wanting to help others. Sperm donors had donated between 1 and 950 times (median = 100) and oocyte donors had donated between 1 and 5 times (median = 2). The majority of sperm donors and more than one-third of oocyte donors expressed concerns about having donated. These concerns were mainly about the well-being of any children conceived using their gametes and not being able to make contact with them. Most sperm and oocyte donors felt that it was important to know how many offspring had been born using their donation, and 51% of sperm donors and 46% of oocyte donors wanted identifying information. All of the donors who had contact with their donor offspring reported positive experiences and the majority continued to have regular contact.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the sample may not be representative of all anonymous donors, this study highlights the importance of donors having access to information about their donor offspring and the positive consequences that may arise when contact is made.