» Articles » PMID: 24549216

Gamete Donors' Expectations and Experiences of Contact with Their Donor Offspring

Overview
Journal Hum Reprod
Date 2014 Feb 20
PMID 24549216
Citations 12
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

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.

Citing Articles

University students' opinion on gamete donor identification regimes.

Nogueira A, Ammar O, Bilir E, Iftene L, Torrero I, Ceschin N J Assist Reprod Genet. 2023; 40(6):1361-1368.

PMID: 37233867 PMC: 10310588. DOI: 10.1007/s10815-023-02832-w.


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

Lou S, Bollerup S, Terkildsen M, Adrian S, Pacey A, Pennings G PLoS One. 2023; 18(2):e0281022.

PMID: 36791066 PMC: 9931114. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0281022.


Commercial Surrogacy: An Overview.

Brandao P, Garrido N Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet. 2022; 44(12):1141-1158.

PMID: 36580941 PMC: 9800153. DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-1759774.


Good practice recommendations for information provision for those involved in reproductive donation.

Kirkman-Brown J, Calhaz-Jorge C, Dancet E, Lundin K, Martins M, Tilleman K Hum Reprod Open. 2022; 2022(1):hoac001.

PMID: 35178481 PMC: 8847071. DOI: 10.1093/hropen/hoac001.


The opposite of a step parent - The genetics without any of the emotion: 'sperm donors' reflections on identity-release donation and relatedness.

Graham S Reprod Biomed Soc Online. 2022; 14:192-203.

PMID: 35024475 PMC: 8732782. DOI: 10.1016/j.rbms.2021.06.003.


References
1.
Allan S . Donor conception, secrecy and the search for information. J Law Med. 2012; 19(4):631-50. View

2.
Johnson L, Bourne K, Hammarberg K . Donor conception legislation in Victoria, Australia: the "Time to Tell" campaign, donor-linking and implications for clinical practice. J Law Med. 2012; 19(4):803-19. View

3.
Mahlstedt P, LaBounty K, Kennedy W . The views of adult offspring of sperm donation: essential feedback for the development of ethical guidelines within the practice of assisted reproductive technology in the United States. Fertil Steril. 2009; 93(7):2236-46. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2008.12.119. View

4.
Crawshaw M, Gunter C, Tidy C, Atherton F . Working with previously anonymous gamete donors and donor-conceived adults: recent practice experiences of running the DNA-based voluntary information exchange and contact register, UK DonorLink. Hum Fertil (Camb). 2012; 16(1):26-30. DOI: 10.3109/14647273.2012.731714. View

5.
Hammarberg K, Johnson L, Bourne K, Fisher J, Kirkman M . Proposed legislative change mandating retrospective release of identifying information: consultation with donors and Government response. Hum Reprod. 2013; 29(2):286-92. PMC: 3896224. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/det434. View