Search

Introduction: A lot of attention has been given to the quest of parents, children and donors to find donor siblings (= half siblings who share the same donor gametes but who are born in different families). However, literature is scarce about the use of the same sperm donor for subsequent children in the same family.Methods: This study included 68 lesbian and heterosexual (aspiring) parents, recruited at the Department of Reproductive Medicine of Ghent University Hospital (Belgium). The in-depth semi-structured couple interviews were performed between October 2012 and October 2013. Data were analyzed through step-by-step inductive thematic analysis.Results: The couples showed a clear preference to use the same sperm donor for their children. The most common reasons for this preference were related to the family or sibling relationships and medical reasons. Uncertainty about the availability of the same donor over time seeped through in their stories. Most lesbian aspiring parents decided that both partners should have a genetic link with at least one child.Conclusion: The use of the same sperm donor for subsequent conceptions appeared quasi unambiguously in the interviews of the lesbian and heterosexual (aspiring) parents in our study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this qualitative study, we explore how lesbian recipients view and experience the selection of their anonymous sperm donor. The study was conducted in Belgium, where fertility centres follow a legal protocol that severely restricts personal choice in donor selection. While previous studies have shown that recipients want greater control and input in the selection of their sperm donor, this was not a main concern for most women in the present study. They generally acknowledged their lack of control on the selection outcome and accepted this as part and parcel of an anonymous donation policy that provides an opportunity to have a child. They actively and passively downplayed initial concerns about the donor selection procedure and felt they did not have or need a right to further control over the donor selection. In adopting this ‘subordinate’ position, they felt they should trust the hospital, which they hoped would fulfil rather high screening standards. Those who did want more choice were nuanced and careful about their motivations: they focused on selecting traits that would facilitate normal child development or increase family coherence. The findings shed light on how these patients perceive their position in this third-party reproduction setting. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Over the years a number of countries have abolished anonymous gamete donation and shifted toward open-identity policies. Donor-conceived children are said to have a fundamental “right to know” the identity of their donor. In this article, we trace the arguments that underlie this claim and question its implications. We argue that, given the status attributed to the right to know one's gamete donor, it would be discriminatory not to extend this right to naturally conceived children with misattributed paternity. One way to facilitate this would be through routine paternity testing at birth. While this proposal is likely to raise concerns about the conflicting interests and rights of other people involved, we show that similar concerns apply to the context of open-identity gamete donation. Unless one can identify a rational basis for treating the two groups differently, one's stance toward both cases should be the same. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]