Lesbian couples' views about and experiences of not being able to choose their sperm donor

Should a gamete bank verify the non-medical information provided by a donor?

Over the years, cases of fraud have been discovered where donors have been lying about their characteristics. The question raised by such cases is what the responsibility of the gamete bank is for the non-medical information provided by the donor. The problem is that extended donor profiles contain a large amount of information about different aspects of the donor's life and that not all this information can be verified or is worth verifying. Two cases are scrutinized in more detail: education and criminal record. The proposed solution is to split the donor information into a verified and a non-verified part with the non-verified part falling under the responsibility of the donor. The question of what information should be included in the verified part of the donor profile is still open.

Sperm donors versus long-term mates: a comparison of preferences of heterosexual and lesbian women

The present study aimed to explore whether lesbian women's preferences for a sperm donor or a long-term mate show a pattern similar to those of heterosexual women. Three hundred and eighty-three donor insemination patients, of whom 278 were heterosexual and 105 were lesbian, completed a questionnaire comprising a series of 35 traits and rated the importance of each trait in a sperm donor and again in a long term mate. Results showed that traits relating to socioeconomic status, genetic background and general health, physical appearance, and personality were rated by lesbian women as more important in a long-term mate than in a sperm donor. It was further found that both heterosexual and lesbian women attached higher importance to the socioeconomic status, personality and physical appearance of the long-term mate than of the sperm donor; heterosexual women attached similar importance to the genes and health of a long-term mate and a sperm donor, while lesbian women attached greater importance to the genetic background and general health of the sperm donor than those of a long-term mate. The implications and interpretations of the findings are discussed in light of Trivers' parental investment theory.

The case for reframing known donation

Contemporary UK egg and sperm donation exists in two predominant forms: (i) clinic-based, identity-release donation; and (ii) known donation, which can take place either inside or outside of the clinic context. Regulatory and clinical discussions of the latter currently focus, almost exclusively, on risk whereas identity-release is widely presented as the default route for both donors and recipients. Consequently, there is little support available for those potential donors and recipient parents who might prefer a known donor arrangement. In this commentary, we reflect on our sociological research with donors and parents through donor conception and argue that there are a number of reasons why known donation may, in some contexts, offer advantages over identity-release donation. Whilst this research also demonstrates that there can be challenges involved in known donation, these are not inevitable nor are challenges absent from identity-release routes. It is timely and important to question whether the current de-valuing of known donation compared with identity-release donation holds up to academic scrutiny. We argue for a more balanced approach in which the benefits and challenges of both known and identity-release routes are discussed with donors and recipients and for increased support for known donation in clinics and by regulatory bodies.

Protective Relational Factors of Lesbian Couples Navigating the Fertility Process

Little research about lesbian couples' experiences with fertility treatment exists in the counseling literature. While there is an increase in lesbian couples exploring fertility options to expand their families, it is important to understand their experiences during this stressful process. This research seeks to understand these experiences using Moustakas' Imaginative Variation method with seven lesbian couples. Results include feelings of isolation, psychological and physical stress. Despite myriad difficulties associated with assisted reproductive technology, participants' experiences show the presence of strong relationship factors, divided into three categories: connectedness, mutuality, and resilience. The use of Relational Cultural Theory may be helpful to lesbian couples looking to expand their families through reproductive methods.

The Pathway of Female Couples in a Fertility Clinic

OBJECTIVE

 The present study aims to describe the main characteristics of female couples resorting to a fertility clinic, to understand whether these patients have clear previous plans concerning procreation and how they end up completing their family planning, and to briefly describe the main outcomes of the recepción de ovocitos de pareja (ROPA, in the Spanish acronym: in English, reception of partner's oocytes) method.

METHODS

 This is a descriptive retrospective study of the pathway and outcomes of female couples in a fertility clinic during a 2-year period.

RESULTS

 A total of 129 couples were treated. Only one third of the couples had no condition potentially affecting fertility or advanced age. Most couples were decided to undergo artificial insemination or in vitro fertilization and the majority kept their plans, as opposed to 38% of the couples who decided to the ROPA method (lesbian shared in vitro fertilization) who changed plans. Live birth rates per treatment (including frozen embryo transfers) for artificial insemination, 58% for in vitro fertilization, 80% for treatments with donated oocytes or embryos, and 79% for ROPA. Four in five couples achieved live births.

CONCLUSION

 The present study highlights the importance of a thorough medical workup in same-sex couples resorting to assisted reproduction. Despite the higher-than-expected rates of fertility disorders, the outcomes were good. Most couples end up in a single parented method. Furthermore, the results of the ROPA method are reassuring.

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.

'We are not infertile': challenges and limitations faced by women in same-sex relationships when seeking conception services in São Paulo, Brazil

The use of reproductive technologies has expanded beyond cases of infertility, and opportunities for individuals of different sexual orientations to use such technologies for conception have increased. The authors examined the challenges and limitations faced by women in same-sex relationships seeking conception services in São Paulo, Brazil. They interviewed 16 women in same-sex relationships who conceived children using reproductive technologies. Access to public health services for conception remains limited and exclusive to infertile heterosexual couples. Women in same-sex relationships are forced to select between costly medical treatments in the private sector, or self-insemination with sperm from a known donor. In this study, individuals reported that they experienced adverse effects of treatments; were treated with technologies for infertility when they were, in fact, fertile; and were exposed to unnecessary and invasive interventions. Growing political conservatism and the reduction of investment in public health services are factors that can directly affect sexual and reproductive health, including that of lesbians. Public policies that enable same-sex couples to conceive have yet to be developed in many countries, and a clearer articulation of the right to evidence-informed, rights-based care, consistent with national and international guidelines is a much-needed next step.

More Natural Does Not Equal More Normal: Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual People's Views About Different Pathways to Parenthood

Heterosexual reproduction is often seen as normal and natural, with the two descriptors commonly understood as mutually reinforcing. I argue that, despite their apparent similarity, the meanings of "normal" and "natural" are distinct in important ways-a distinction that questions the positioning of lesbian motherhood and gay fatherhood as inferior. Through an analysis of lesbian, gay, and bisexual people's ethical judgments about different ways of creating families, I show that pathways to parenthood that make a family appear "more normal" rely on means of reproduction that seem, in fact, "less natural." Conversely, reproductive possibilities seen as "more organic" create families that depart more substantially from the cultural norm of the nuclear family. As a result of this tension, different pathways to parenthood can be justified as being "in children's best interests." However, while this children-centered justification can be flexibly applied, it also has contradictory meanings.

'No daddy', 'A kind of daddy': words used by donor conceived children and (aspiring) parents to refer to the sperm donor

Research has shown that the recipients of donor sperm can experience difficulties finding appropriate language to refer to the donor. Based on two qualitative analysis techniques, namely word count and empirical discourse analysis, we studied the words used to refer to the donor in heterosexual and lesbian (aspiring) parents and in donor conceived children. Findings show that the words used in these households are highly diverse and have at least four different interlinked functions: (1) to position the donor in relation to the nuclear family; (2) to safeguard the role of the social parent; (3) to clarify family structure; and (4) to present a positive picture of the donor. Both parents and children consciously reflect on what words to use to refer to the donor. Although parents try to keep words like 'father' and 'daddy' out of the family narrative, children use these words. These findings show that it is important for healthcare personnel and policy makers to reflect on the careful use of terminology when they address questions around sperm donation because the terminology invokes specific meanings that have an effect on how the recipients and their children perceive the role of the donor.