Donor gametes and embryos: who wants to know what about whom, and why?

Sperm Donation and the Right to Privacy

Sperm donation is an increasingly common method of assisted reproduction. In the debate on sperm donation, the right to privacy - construed as a right that refers to the limits of the realm of information to which others have access - plays a pivotal role with regard to two questions. The first question is whether the sperm donor's right to privacy implies his right to retain his anonymity, the second is whether the gamete recipients' right to privacy entitles them to withhold information about the circumstances of their conception from their donor-conceived offspring. In this contribution, I tackle these two interrelated questions. In part (1), I defend the view that there is a prima facie right of sperm donors to remain anonymous. Part (2) widens the perspective by taking into consideration the welfare of donor-conceived offspring. I argue that anonymity may harm the child only if the gametes' recipients decide to disclose information about the circumstances of her birth to the child. Non-disclosure of these circumstances, however, is morally problematic because it may not necessarily harm, but wrong the child. In section (3), I attempt to rebut some arguments in defense of non-disclosure. In part (4), I defend the view that the best practice of sperm donation would be 'direct donation', i.e. that the identity of the donor is known from the time of conception. Part (5) concludes.

Conceptualising a child-centric paradigm : do we have freedom of choice in donor conception reproduction?

Since its inception, donor conception practices have been a reproductive choice for the infertile. Past and current practices have the potential to cause significant and lifelong harm to the offspring through loss of kinship, heritage, identity, and family health history, and possibly through introducing physical problems. Legislation and regulation in Australia that specifies that the welfare of the child born as a consequence of donor conception is paramount may therefore be in conflict with the outcomes. Altering the paradigm to a child-centric model, however, impinges on reproductive choice and rights of adults involved in the process. With some lobby groups pushing for increased reproductive choice while others emphasise offspring rights there is a dichotomy of interests that society and legislators need to address. Concepts pertaining to a shift toward a child-centric paradigm are discussed.

Strategies for disclosure: how parents approach telling their children that they were conceived with donor gametes

OBJECTIVE

To describe how parents envision, plan, and enact disclosing to their children that they were conceived with donor gametes.

DESIGN

In-depth ethnographic interviews.

SETTING

Participants were recruited from 11 medical infertility practices and 1 sperm bank in Northern California.

PATIENT(S)

A total of 141 married couples who had conceived a child using donor gametes (62 with donor sperm and 79 with donor oocytes).

INTERVENTION(S)

Husbands and wives were interviewed together and separately.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

Thematic analysis of interview transcripts.

RESULT(S)

Disclosing parents predominantly subscribed to one of two disclosure strategies: the conviction that early disclosure is of paramount importance so that the child "always knows," or the belief that later disclosure is preferable after family routines have been established and the child has the maturity to understand biologic concepts and has developed a sense of discretion. No parent regretted disclosing, and many expressed relief.

CONCLUSION(S)

Parents choosing early disclosure were more at ease with the disclosure process, whereas parents choosing later disclosure reported greater uncertainty about how and when to disclose. Parents wished for more peer and/or professional support and guidance to assist them with disclosure, not only initially but continuing long after their children were born.