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.

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]

Copyright of Family Process is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Over the years, connection websites and speed dating events have increasingly attracted singles and couples who cannot have a child in the ‘traditional’ way. These initiatives bring together candidate gamete providers and recipients with the promise of offering more freedom of choice than fertility centres or sperm banks currently do. Depending on the level of contact desired, the role of the gamete provider may range from not being involved at all to sharing full parental rights and obligations. In this paper, we take a look at the ethical and social issues that emerge with these new forms of family arrangements. We suggest that, although the private arrangements promote greater autonomy and control for all parties involved, risks and questionable assumptions are also at play. In particular, risks involve insufficient screening of the involved donor or co-parent, particularly in terms of motives and psychological characteristics. One must also be wary of the risk of unregulated commercialization and, more importantly, of disappointments and legal conflicts caused by unclear or changing expectations. We also warn for the risk of reinforcing heterosexist and genetic norms of parenting and valid family building. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Over the past years, a growing number of countries have legislated open-identity donation, in which donor-conceived offspring are given access to the donor's identity once the child has reached maturity. It is held that donor anonymity creates identity problems for such children similar to the 'genealogical bewilderment' described within the adoption context. The study of the social and psychological effects of open-identity donation is still very much in its infancy, but what has been left unquestioned is whether (and to what extent) offering access to the donor's name and address is an adequate response to such effects. This study has two goals: First, we aim to provide a systematic review of the reasons why donor-conceived (DC) offspring want to know the identity of their sperm donor. Second, we examine to what extent the provision of donor-identifying information can satisfy the reasons mentioned. The most important motivations appear to be: (1) to avoid medical risks and consanguineous relationships; (2) to satisfy curiosity; (3) to learn more about the self or to complete one's identity; (4) to learn more about what kind of person the donor is (biographical information, why he donated, etc.); (5) to form a relationship with the donor and/or his family; and (6) to learn about one's ancestry/genealogy. Our analysis shows that for nearly all of these reasons access to the donor's identity is not necessary. In those cases where it is, moreover, donor identification is not sufficient. What is really needed is (extended) contact with the donor, rather than the mere provision of his name. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aim of this qualitative study was to explore how recipients viewed payment of sperm donors. The study was conducted in Belgium, where, as in many countries, sperm donors receive recompense for their time and expenses. Face-to-face semi-structured interviews were conducted with 34 heterosexual and lesbian couples who, at the time of data collection, had at least one donor-conceived child aged 7–10 years or who were undergoing donor conception treatment. Although participants commonly described the issue of financial compensation as something that did not really concern them, all supported the idea that some level of payment was acceptable or even necessary. The participants also identified several ways in which donor payment offered advantages to their own position as (future) parents. Although the idea is commonly rehearsed that sperm donation is a gift and that monetary transaction for conception is demeaning, the participants of this study did not generally share this view. To them, a small financial return served as a symbolic acknowledgement of the donor's contribution and helped secure the type of relationship they expected from their donor. There was clearly concern, however, over high payments and the risk of attracting the wrong kind of donor. [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]

STUDY QUESTION What meanings do lesbian couples construct regarding their sperm donor? SUMMARY ANSWER For some parents, the donor was increasingly presented as a person, whereas for other parents, the donor was seen as an instrument from the moment they received the sperm donation. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY Few studies specifically focus on how lesbian couples deal with the issue of third-party anonymous gamete donation. It is often assumed that they have fewer difficulties than heterosexual couples with the involvement of a male procreator, since their status as a donor conception family is ‘socially visible’ and there is no social father who fears exclusion. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 10 lesbian couples (20 participants), recruited via the Ghent University Hospital. All couples had at least one child, conceived through anonymous donor insemination, between 7 and 10 years old. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS Within the data corpus, a particular data set was analyzed where couples referred to their donor and his position in their family. Step-by-step inductive thematic analysis was performed resulting in themes that are grounded in the data. All phases of the analysis were followed by team discussion. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE This study reveals different donor constructs, indicating different ways of dealing with the third-party involvement in the family. Some parents diminish the role of the donor throughout family life and continue to present him as an instrument: something they needed in order to become parents. Others show an increasing interest in the donor as the children mature, which results in a more personalized account of the donor. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION In our qualitative cross-sectional study, we collected retrospectively constructed stories. Longitudinal qualitative and quantitative research is required to allow for an extrapolation of the conclusions made. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS This study shows how the concept of the donor is constructed within lesbian families and how it is challenged by the child's developing personality and features. When counseling prospective parents, it could therefore be useful to discuss the concept of the anonymous donor beyond the conception phase. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S) The project was funded by the Research Fund of Ghent University, Belgium. There are no competing interests. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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]

The field of gamete donation for medically assisted reproduction purposes is evolving. While anonymous gamete donation was long the preferred practice, a new focus on the rights and interests of donor-conceived children has led a number of countries to shift towards an open-identity system. However, this evolution appears to overlook whether information exchange could also be of interest to the other parties involved, in particular the gamete donors. In this article, we analyse the question whether donors should be granted a right to some information about the offspring conceived by their donations. We constructed five arguments which donors could use in support of such a claim: (i) It can be of great importance to the donors' and their own children's health that they receive medical information (in particular, evidence of an unsuspected genetic disease) about the donor offspring; (ii) basic information (such as whether any children were born) could be a way to acknowledge donors for their altruistic behaviour; (iii) general information (information about the child's wellbeing) about the donor offspring could ease the donors' potential concern about and sense of responsibility for the offspring; (iv) basic information could provide an important enrichment of the donors' identities; (v) identifying information would be useful for donors who want to contact the donor offspring. No strong arguments in favour of granting donors the right to identifying information were found. An exchange of this type of information should only be accepted when all parties agree. Taken together, the four first arguments form a strong case for granting donors a right to several types of anonymous information about the donor offspring. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An Ravelingien and Guido Pennings respond to commentaries written about their article "The Right to Know Your Genetic Parents: From Open Identity Gamete Donation to Routine Paternity Testing”.