The Child's Right to Know Versus the Parents' Right Not to Tell: The Attitudes of Couples Undergoing Fertility Treatments Towards Identity-Release Gamete Donation

Overview

Journal J Reprod Infertil

Specialty Reproductive Medicine

Date 2023 Sep 4

PMID 37663427

Authors

Douglas Oliveira Rocha

Rose Marie Massaro Melamed

Daniela Paes de Almeida Ferreira Braga

Amanada Souza Setti

Assumpto Iaconelli Jr

Edson Borges Jr

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: In Brazil, donor anonymity is mandatory; however, the tendency of Brazilians towards the practice is unknown. In this study, an attempt was made to investigate whether couples undergoing assisted reproductive technology (ART) have a different perception of anonymous versus identity-release gamete donation than a target population in Brazil.

Methods: This cross-sectional study was performed from September 1, 2020 to December 15, 2020. For that purpose, surveys through online platforms were conducted, including either patients undergoing ART (ART-group, n=400) or subjects interested in the theme (interested-group, n=100) randomized by age at a 1:4 ratio. The survey collected information on the participants' attitudes towards anonymity of gamete donors, and answers were compared between the groups.

Results: Most participants stated that the relationship between children and their parents would be affected by the child's knowledge of the origin of its conception. Most participants in the ART-group believed that the gamete donor's identity should not be revealed to the child, while only half of the interested-group stated the same. Most of the participants stated that "the donor's identity should be revealed if the child questions its biological origin". "From birth" was the second most common response, while "when the child turns 18 years old" and "sometime during teenage years" were less common answers.

Conclusion: The attitudes of ART patients about anonymity are conservative, with most participants believing that family relationships may be affected if the child is aware of the origin of his/her conception. These patients also believe that the identity of the gamete donor should not be revealed to the child.

References

. Informing offspring of their conception by gamete or embryo donation: an Ethics Committee opinion. Fertil Steril. 2018; 109(4):601-605. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2018.01.001. View

Ilioi E, Blake L, Jadva V, Roman G, Golombok S . The role of age of disclosure of biological origins in the psychological wellbeing of adolescents conceived by reproductive donation: a longitudinal study from age 1 to age 14. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2016; 58(3):315-324. PMC: 5324532. DOI: 10.1111/jcpp.12667. View

De Geyter C, Calhaz-Jorge C, Kupka M, Wyns C, Mocanu E, Motrenko T . ART in Europe, 2014: results generated from European registries by ESHRE: The European IVF-monitoring Consortium (EIM) for the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE). Hum Reprod. 2018; 33(9):1586-1601. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/dey242. View

Isaksson S, Sydsjo G, Skoog Svanberg A, Lampic C . Disclosure behaviour and intentions among 111 couples following treatment with oocytes or sperm from identity-release donors: follow-up at offspring age 1-4 years. Hum Reprod. 2012; 27(10):2998-3007. PMC: 3442633. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/des285. View

Indekeu A, Dierickx K, Schotsmans P, Daniels K, Rober P, DHooghe T . Factors contributing to parental decision-making in disclosing donor conception: a systematic review. Hum Reprod Update. 2013; 19(6):714-33. DOI: 10.1093/humupd/dmt018. View

Turner A, Coyle A . What does it mean to be a donor offspring? The identity experiences of adults conceived by donor insemination and the implications for counselling and therapy. Hum Reprod. 2000; 15(9):2041-51. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/15.9.2041. View

. The clinical utility of sperm DNA integrity testing: a guideline. Fertil Steril. 2013; 99(3):673-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2012.12.049. View

Daniels K . Donor gametes: anonymous or identified?. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2006; 21(1):113-28. DOI: 10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2006.09.010. View

Cobo A, Remohi J, Chang C, Nagy Z . Oocyte cryopreservation for donor egg banking. Reprod Biomed Online. 2011; 23(3):341-6. DOI: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2011.05.014. View

10.

Freeman T, Golombok S . Donor insemination: a follow-up study of disclosure decisions, family relationships and child adjustment at adolescence. Reprod Biomed Online. 2012; 25(2):193-203. DOI: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2012.03.009. View

11.

Pennings G . Disclosure of donor conception, age of disclosure and the well-being of donor offspring. Hum Reprod. 2017; 32(5):969-973. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/dex056. View

12.

Wang T, Yuen K, Wong S . Asymptomatic Penicillium marneffei fungemia in an HIV-infected patient. Int J Infect Dis. 2006; 11(3):280-1. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijid.2006.04.004. View

13.

Applegarth L, Kaufman N, Josephs-Sohan M, Christos P, Rosenwaks Z . Parental disclosure to offspring created with oocyte donation: intentions versus reality. Hum Reprod. 2016; 31(8):1809-15. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/dew125. View

14.

Bustillo M, Buster J, Cohen S, Hamilton F, Thorneycroft I, Simon J . Delivery of a healthy infant following nonsurgical ovum transfer. JAMA. 1984; 251(7):889. View

15.

Golombok S, Brewaeys A, Giavazzi M, Guerra D, Maccallum F, Rust J . The European study of assisted reproduction families: the transition to adolescence. Hum Reprod. 2002; 17(3):830-40. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/17.3.830. View

16.

Kovacs G, Wise S, Finch S . Keeping a child's donor sperm conception secret is not linked to family and child functioning during middle childhood: An Australian comparative study. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2015; 55(4):390-6. DOI: 10.1111/ajo.12349. View

17.

Kalampalikis N, Haas V, Fieulaine N, Doumergue M, Deschamps G . Giving or giving back: new psychosocial insights from sperm donors in France. Psychol Health Med. 2012; 18(1):1-9. DOI: 10.1080/13548506.2012.668195. View

18.

Hershberger P, Driessnack M, Kavanaugh K, Klock S . Oocyte donation disclosure decisions: a longitudinal follow-up at middle childhood. Hum Fertil (Camb). 2019; 24(1):31-45. DOI: 10.1080/14647273.2019.1567945. View

19.

Gottlieb C, Lalos O, Lindblad F . Disclosure of donor insemination to the child: the impact of Swedish legislation on couples' attitudes. Hum Reprod. 2000; 15(9):2052-6. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/15.9.2052. View

20.

Golombok S, Blake L, Casey P, Roman G, Jadva V . Children born through reproductive donation: a longitudinal study of psychological adjustment. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2012; 54(6):653-60. PMC: 3586757. DOI: 10.1111/jcpp.12015. View