Search

STUDY QUESTION Are donor-conceived people (DCP) willing to utilize donor gametes themselves if unable to conceive spontaneously? SUMMARY ANSWER The majority of DCP would consider or are undecided about utilizing donor gametes and those who would consider the utilization are more likely to have been told about their donor-conceived origins at a young age by a family member and have overall positive experiences as a DCP. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY DCP view their donor conception as an important part of their self-identity and many desire contact with genetically related individuals. Additionally, many believe that sperm donation should only be practiced if identifying information on the donor is provided. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION This was a cross-sectional study using a Web-based survey that was disseminated from 6 March to 15 August 2021. A total of 528 participants completed the questionnaire. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS The researcher-created survey was sent to registered users of the Donor Sibling Registry (DSR) who were conceived via donor-assisted reproduction and were 18 years of age or older. The survey was optional and anonymous, and the main outcome measure was the willingness to use donated gametes if unable to spontaneously conceive. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE Of the 528 participants who completed the survey, 40.2% (212/528) have or would consider using donor gametes themselves if unable to conceive spontaneously and 24.6% (130/528) were undecided. Those who had used or were undecided about the utilization were significantly younger (26 years vs. 31 years, P  < 0.001) and less likely to be married (32.7% vs. 47.3%, P  < 0.001) than those who would not consider using donor gametes. They were also less likely to self-identify as female (78.9% vs. 86.6%, P  = 0.03) but had no difference in sexual orientation (P  = 0.13). Additionally, they were more likely to have known about their donor-conceived origins for more years (18 (0–50) vs. 11 (0–61), P  = 0.004), be informed by a family member (75.5% vs. 65.6%, P  = 0.001) and have overall positive feelings about being conceived using a donor (93.0% vs. 52.5%, P  < 0.001). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION A major limitation is that DSR participants may not be representative of all DCP. Additionally, analyzing the DCP who stated that they were undecided about using donor gametes into the 'would consider' group may be overestimating the openness to utilization in this group. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS The findings from this study give new insight for health care workers to further counsel patients who are considering using third-party reproduction by providing reassurance that the majority of their future children would consider similar means, if needed, to achieve their family-building goals. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S) Funding for this study was received from the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology Division of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility, University of Colorado. All authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest to disclose. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER N/A. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A forgotten group of donor-conceived persons is those who believe that gamete donation is morally wrong and should be prohibited. Although they share the two main arguments with the anti-anonymity group, i.e. the psychological harm as a consequence of lacking the necessary information for identity construction, and the violation of a fundamental human right, namely the right to be cared for by one's genetic parents, their voices are largely ignored in the debate. The anti-donation group also has a large part of the ideology of the family in common with the anti-anonymity group. The paper concludes that the anti-donation position should be accepted as an equivalent position. Moreover, given the similarities between the two positions, people who accept the claims of the anti-anonymity donor-conceived persons should explain why the claims of the anti-donation group should not be honoured. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Donor conception creates families with varying genetic linkage between family members. This may have short-term as well as lifelong psychosocial consequences for all involved. Gamete donors have traditionally been anonymous to recipients and offspring, but there is a growing trend towards identity-release donor programmes that give offspring the right to obtain the donor’s identity. This review aims to provide an overview of the perspectives of donors and recipients and offspring involved in identity-release donation. The results show that both oocyte and sperm donors have primarily altruistic motives, and recipients, in particular lesbian and single women, are generally open about the donation to their offspring. The few existing studies on offspring perspectives indicate that those who are aware of their donor conception appear to be interested in contact with the donor, and most donors are open to such contact. Investigations of donors and recipients indicate a need for more counselling and support to manage family life with varying genetic linkage within and outside the family unit. This includes preparing for and managing future contact between the donor and his/her family and donor offspring and their family, as well as between donor siblings and their respective families.

What is sperm donors' attitude towards offspring, anonymity and extended genetic screening? An online questionnaire for sperm donors was administered at Cryos International in the USA and Denmark between 9 and 30 September 2020. A total of 233 donors (37 in the USA and 196 in Denmark) completed the questionnaire. This study is unique because it was performed in a setting that allows donors to choose to be either ID-release or non-ID-release donors. Most donors had two motives to donate: helping childless people and/or financial compensation. ID-release donors differed significantly from non-ID-release donors in numerous aspects of the donation, including relationships with the offspring, information sharing with others and wanting information about offspring. In general, donors had a very positive attitude towards genetic testing and extended genetic screening. Offering the possibility for donors to be either ID-release or non-ID-release allows more donors to be recruited than if only one option were available. The multiple differences between the two donor types suggests that these are groups with profoundly different attitudes towards donation. The general attitude of donors towards genetic testing and expanded genetic screening is very positive but further studies on the attitude of candidate donors are needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article questions the notion of kinning through the analysis of resemblance and transmission talk in the narratives of French donor offspring. Between February 2015 and May 2016, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 15 French sperm donor conceived adults. For most of them their conception had been a secret for part of their life. After the disclosure of the facts of their conception, donor offspring reassessed their kin relationships, integrating the new information into their narrative. The father’s absence of participation in procreation was integrated without denying his role and status as a father. The donor’s participation in procreation was also included in the narratives but he was not considered as kin. I thus argue that resemblance and transmission talk does not necessarily imply kinship and kinning. When it does refer to kin, it participates in a process of reaffirmation of family relations affected by disclosure, that I propose to describe as re-kinning.

Research Framework: New figures are emerging within the connections created by donor conception: same-donor-offspring. Objectives: Based on an anthropological study with sperm donor conceived adults in the United Kingdom and France, the article analyzes the distinctions that they establish between same-donor-offspring, siblings and the donor’s children in order to better understand what is involved in sharing “origins” when people have been conceived using the same donor. Methodology: The article draws on an empirical study through in-depth semi-directive interviews conducted between October 2017 and December 2019 with 17 sperm donor conceived adults in the United Kingdom and in France. Results: In the light of the relationships with siblings, the connections between same-donor offspring appear first as a paradoxical bodily bond that is materialized by a sharing of genes between strangers. The distinctions between children of the donor and donor conceived people then emphasize that, beyond genetics, it is the donation that specifies the links between same-donor-offspring. More than a progenitor, they share the circumstances of their conception, from which arise a shared narrative and common experiences that specify their bond. Finally, although the concrete relationships that are formed are characterized by their flexibility and their elective dimension, they nonetheless give rise to new norms and hierarchies. Conclusions: The study of the connections between same-donor-offspring suggests the constitution of a new relational category at the edges of kinship. Contribution: The article addresses donor conception through the collateral connections it produces. It contributes to the reflection on the content of the relations created by “origins”.

Research framework: New figures are emerging within the links created by medically assisted procreation with third-party donors: people from the same donation. Objectives: Based on an anthropological survey of adults conceived by sperm donation in the United Kingdom and France, the article analyzes the distinctions that are made between people from the same donation, brothers and sisters. sisters and children of the donor in order to better understand what is involved in sharing "origins" when one has been conceived thanks to the same donor. Methodology: The analysis is based on in-depth semi-structured interviews conducted between October 2017 and December 2019 with 17 adults conceived by sperm donation who identified at least one person conceived by the same donor in the United Kingdom and in France. Results: In the light of relationships with brothers and sisters, connections between people from the same donation first appear as a paradoxical bodily bond that materializes through the sharing of genes between strangers. The distinctions between the donor's children and people conceived by donation then underline that beyond the genetic dimension, it is the donation event that specifies the links between people from the same donation. More than a progenitor, they share the circumstances of their conception, from which flow a shared narrative and common experiences. Finally, if the relationships that are established are characterized by their flexibility and their elective dimension, they nonetheless give rise to new norms and hierarchies. Conclusions: The study of the links between people resulting from the same donation suggests the constitution of a new relational category at the borders of kinship. Contribution: The article proposes to approach assisted procreation with a third-party donor through the collateral relationships that it produces. It contributes to the reflection on the content of the links created by the "origins". [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Donor conception creates families with varying genetic linkage between family members. This may have short-term as well as lifelong psychosocial consequences for all involved. Gamete donors have traditionally been anonymous to recipients and offspring, but there is a growing trend towards identity-release donor programmes that give offspring the right to obtain the donor's identity. This review aims to provide an overview of the perspectives of donors and recipients and offspring involved in identity-release donation. The results show that both oocyte and sperm donors have primarily altruistic motives, and recipients, in particular lesbian and single women, are generally open about the donation to their offspring. The few existing studies on offspring perspectives indicate that those who are aware of their donor conception appear to be interested in contact with the donor, and most donors are open to such contact. Investigations of donors and recipients indicate a need for more counselling and support to manage family life with varying genetic linkage within and outside the family unit. This includes preparing for and managing future contact between the donor and his/her family and donor offspring and their family, as well as between donor siblings and their respective families. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article questions the notion of kinning through the analysis of resemblance and transmission talk in the narratives of French donor offspring. Between February 2015 and May 2016, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 15 French sperm donor conceived adults. For most of them their conception had been a secret for part of their life. After the disclosure of the facts of their conception, donor offspring reassessed their kin relationships, integrating the new information into their narrative. The father's absence of participation in procreation was integrated without denying his role and status as a father. The donor's participation in procreation was also included in the narratives but he was not considered as kin. I thus argue that resemblance and transmission talk does not necessarily imply kinship and kinning. When it does refer to kin, it participates in a process of reaffirmation of family relations affected by disclosure, that I propose to describe as re-kinning. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Anonymity is a multifaceted term. Anonymity is rarely eternal or absolute. The use of genetic databases increases the risk of identification of previously anonymous donors. Searches through genetic databases jeopardize the privacy of people who did and did not register on them. Three types of searches can be distinguished in the context of gamete donation: offspring looking for their donor, offspring looking for donor siblings and donors looking for their donor offspring. All three types of searches violate the rights of recipients and donors. It is argued that despite the existence of genetic databases, anonymity maintains the same function as it had before: it expresses a wish for distance and privacy by both donors and recipients and, even if not enforceable, should be respected by all parties in good faith. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Revista de Antropología Social is the property of Universidad Complutense de Madrid 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.)

The matter of disclosure of donor conception to donor offspring is a very contentious issue. A frequently mentioned argument is that disclosure is in the best interest of the child. The objectives of this paper are 2-fold: first, to find out whether there are any measureable, stable differences in the psychological well-being of donor offspring who are informed of the mode of their conception compared to those who are not, and second, to find out what is being done with the evidence. We found that there exists no empirical evidence of differences in psychological well-being of donor offspring in disclosing or nondisclosing families. Regarding the age of disclosure, the findings are inconclusive. Some studies indicate no difference and some show slight positive effects of early disclosure. We also found that authors tend to ignore their own findings when formulating recommendations and that the recommendations are based on implicit moral premises. We conclude that disclosure, and directive counseling towards disclosure, cannot be justified by the welfare of the donor offspring. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Intraperitoneal busulfan injections are used to prepare recipients for spermatogonial stem cell (SSC) transplantation but they are associated with haematopoietic toxicity. Testicular injections of busulfan have been proposed to overcome this limitation. To date, testicular injections have not been studied in the mouse model. Therefore, in the present study we used ICR mice as recipients for SSC transplantation and prepared these mice by testicular injection of busulfan on both sides (2, 3, 4 or 6 mg kg 1 per side). Following this, donor germ cells expressing red fluorescent protein (RFP) from transgenic C57BL/6J male mice were transplanted into recipients via the efferent duct on Days 16-17 after busulfan treatment. Positive control mice were prepared by intraperitoneal injection of 40 mg kg 1 busulfan and negative control mice were treated with bilateral testicular injection of 50% dimethyl sulfoxide. On Day 49 after transplantation, recipient mice that were RFP-positive by in vivo imaging were mated with ICR female mice. Donor-derived germ cell colonies with red fluorescence were observed on Day 60 after transplantation, and donor-derived offspring were obtained. The results demonstrated that endogenous germ cells were successfully eliminated in the seminiferous tubules via testicular busulfan administration, and that exogenous SSCs successfully undergo spermatogenesis in the testes of recipient mice prepared by testicular injections of busulfan. In addition to its effects on recipient preparation, this method was safe in rodents and could possibly be adapted for use in other species. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Study Question: How do heterosexual parents reason about and experience information-sharing with offspring following identity-release sperm donation?Summary Answer: Sharing information about using donor-conception with offspring is a complex process at several levels, with the parent's personal beliefs and the child's responses serving as driving or impeding forces for the information-sharing process.What Is Known Already: The overall view of disclosure in gamete donation has shifted from secrecy to openness, but there is still uncertainty among parents concerning how and when to tell the child about his/her genetic origin. Most research on donor-conceived families has focused on donation treatment under anonymous or known circumstances, and there is a lack of studies in settings with identity-release donations.Study Design, Size, Duration: A qualitative interview study among 30 parents following identity-release sperm donation treatment. Interviews were conducted from February 2014 to March 2015.Participants/materials, Setting, Methods: The present study is part of the prospective longitudinal Swedish Study on Gamete Donation (SSGD), including all fertility clinics performing gamete donation in Sweden. A sample of participants in the SSGD, consisting of heterosexual parents with children aged 7-8 years following identity-release sperm donation, participated in individual semi-structured interviews.Main Results and the Role Of Chance: The analysis revealed one main theme: information-sharing is a process, with three subthemes; (i) the parent as process manager, (ii) the child as force or friction and (iii) being in the process. The first two subthemes were viewed as being linked together and their content served as driving or impeding forces in the information-sharing process.Limitations, Reasons For Caution: The fact that the study was performed within the context of the Swedish legislation on identity-release donation must be taken into consideration as regards transferability to other populations, as this may affect parents' reasoning concerning their information-sharing with the child.Wider Implications Of the Findings: The present findings highlight the role of the donor-conceived child in the information-sharing process and may contribute to develop counselling that increases parents' confidence in handling children's reactions to information about their genetic origin.Study Funding/competing Interests: Financial support from The Swedish Research Council, The Family Planning Fund in Uppsala and Ferring Pharmaceuticals. There are no conflicts of interest to declare.Trial Registration Number: N/A. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Narratives of origin are critical to one's sense of identity as stories ranging from Greek myths such as that of Oedipus to donor offspring's desire to trace their biological families testify. Different cultures require diverse degrees of particularity and frequency when it comes to accounting for one's origin, and as Cavarero [Relating Narratives: Storytelling and Selfhood(London: Routledge, 2000)] and Butler [Giving an Account of Oneself(New York: Fordham University Press, 2005)] indicate, certain normativities apply to the kinds of accounts one is expected to provide. Against these normativities, changes in family formations and kinship relations have required new ways of articulating the self, particularly from those whose narratives do not fit with conventional stories of origin. Thus over the past thirty years or so, we have seen increasing numbers of what are known as ‘donor offspring’ come of age and articulate their sense of self in relation to the specificities of their stories of origin. This article examines auto/biographical accounts of self by ‘donor offspring’, published online on blogs and websites of donor offspring associations, in order to analyse the intersection of origin, identity, and narrative convention in relation to notions of genetic inheritance. It argues that donor offspring face particular challenges when asked to tell their story of origin as there is as yet little by way of convention to support that telling. The conventions that do exist and are reproduced, all point to particular ways of understanding the possibilities of one's genetic ‘inheritance’ that are radically at odds with the insights that developments in epigenetics provide regarding the relationship between nature and nurture (See Evelyn Fox Keller,The Mirage of a Space Between Nature and Nurture(Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2010) and Mark F. Mehler and Dolores Malaspina (eds),Epigenetics and Neuropsychiatric Diseases: Mechanisms Mediating Nature and Nurture(New York: New York Academy of Sciences, 2010)). These conventions are underpinned by agendas, of those who on the relevant websites for instance, that seek to influence debates on reproductive technologies based on particular views of genetic inheritance. The article will argue that a detailed understanding of the meaning of genetic inheritance as it emerges in donor offspring narratives is necessary in order to produce meaningful and productive interventions in epigenetic debates which need to mediate the gap between epigenetic knowledge and donor offspring's articulated perceptions of genetic inheritance. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

This study considered professional input into collecting personalized donor information for later release to donor offspring. Existing studies report the importance of such information for identity completion, to satisfy curiosity, and to allay anxiety about genetic inheritance. The study used a three-pronged approach: a literature search of professional practices in this and related fields; key informant telephone interviews with donor-conceived adults, sperm and egg donors, and professionals and a postal survey of UK clinics' practices and views. The literature revealed only one previous study, which suggested gendered approaches to pen portraits were used in commercial donor banks. Key informants agreed on the importance of information for offspring well-being and the need for support services in its compilation and on release. Donors reported inadequate professional assistance to date. The postal survey of clinics revealed variable practices in the process of acquiring and storing later life information and variable success in achieving its completion. Respondents identified factors that hinder completion (donor anxiety, lack of guidance, shortage of staff time) and factors that help (donor belief in the importance of later life information, staff belief, dedicated staff time). Further research, including intervention studies, is needed into the processes and skills involved in collecting later life information. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND This paper presents finding from a study of the emotional and relational aspects of egg-sharing, exploring egg-share donors' and recipients' thoughts and feelings about each other, about each other's treatment outcome and any resulting children, as well as their attitudes towards disclosure of donor origins and contact between donors and donor offspring in the future. It is the first study of this population since the removal of donor anonymity in 2005. METHODS A paper or online questionnaire was completed anonymously by 48 donors and 38 recipients who took part in egg-sharing between 2007 and 2009. Data were obtained on a range of measures—including demographics, family circumstances, motivations and anxieties, feelings about egg-sharing, retrospective assessments and views on regulation—and analysed to facilitate cross-group and within-group comparisons of donors and recipients. RESULTS This study found very few differences between donors and recipients, as well as between successful and unsuccessful egg-share participants. Donors and recipients expressed sentiments of goodwill towards one another, and displayed attitudes of openness regarding disclosure decisions and future contact among donors and donor-conceived offspring. While some donors and recipients wanted to know the outcome of their donor's/recipient's treatment, others preferred not to. CONCLUSIONS Most significantly, concerns voiced regarding the potential psychological harm to donors, particularly those whose own treatment ends unsuccessfully, were not borne out by the data. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper reports on a Canadian study of the views of 15 women who had altruistically donated oocytes to a friend or a relative for family building and 18 women who had received oocytes donated by a friend or a relative towards disclosure of the donation to both the donor-conceived child and the child(ren) of the donor. Semi-structured interviews were undertaken with participants either in person or by telephone. The vast majority of donors and recipients reported concordance regarding disclosure. There was a greater tendency towards disclosure than for non-disclosure, especially where the donation had resulted in the birth of a child. Nevertheless, participants expressed considerable ambiguity around the optimum time for disclosure. The study highlights unique characteristics in co-ordinating disclosure plans to children in both families when the donors also had young child(ren) and how the relationships between donors and recipients and their families may be expected to impact on, and be impacted by, their disclosure decisions. These include the psychological and social costs that may occur when donors and recipients disagree regarding disclosure. Findings from this study contribute to the currently limited research evidence on disclosure to children in both donor and recipient families following known oocyte donation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The present study explored the process of disclosure in gamete donation families in the UK.Methods: Interviews were conducted with 23 mothers and 15 fathers who had told their 7-year-old child about the nature of their conception. Twelve children were interviewed about what they understood and how they felt about their donor conception (DC).Results: The majority of families had disclosed by the age of four and mothers were found to be the main disclosers. Although some parents expressed concerns about the disclosure, the majority did not experience difficulties. No child responded to disclosure in a negative way. Seven-year-old children showed little understanding of their DC, despite parents starting the process of disclosure before the age of four.Conclusions: In spite of mothers' concerns about disclosing DC to their children, children responded to disclosure in a neutral way and most parents did not find disclosure to be problematic. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Previous practices of withholding information from those conceived through donor conception are changing. However, little is known about the service needs of those affected. In response to this, the UK Government-funded pilot voluntary information exchange and contact register, UK DonorLink, was launched in 2004, covering conceptions prior to August 1991. It is the only register worldwide that relies primarily on DNA testing to establish genetic connectedness in the absence of written records. Approximately 150 adults came forward to register in the first three years of operation, drawn from all interested parties. Matches between half-siblings have been made, but none yet between donor and offspring. Employing staff with expertise in post-adoption work has proved effective, as long as additional training and support specific to donor issues is provided. The infrastructure required to promote and deliver the service reflects the complex mix of skills and tasks required, and confirms that a service provided through independent counsellors alone would be inappropriate. Having a geographically and socially widespread potential registrant group, together with a limited budget, has limited the effectiveness of advertising and promotion campaigns. Ethical and emotional complexities arising through the direct service are highlighted, including those presented by DNA use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper reports on qualitative data from a UK Department of Health-funded telephone interview study of 32 men who donated sperm samples at King's College Hospital. London between 1988 and 2002. The study considers the donors' attitudes and views about a proposed voluntary information exchange and contact register. The results suggest that semen donors continue to manage thoughts and feelings that arise from donation throughout their lifetimes, linked to their philosophical beliefs and/or evolving personal and social experiences. Some donors supported the register proposal even if they anticipated that there might be a personal cost to themselves. Several saw contact with donor offspring and/or knowledge about the outcome of their donation as potentially satisfying, indicating that it is possible to retain an interest in those to whom one is genetically related regardless of social contact. There was strong support among donors to have: (i) some control over information release and contact and (ii) access to ongoing information, advice or support from professionals who are skilled and experienced in search and reunion services. Some donors would be willing to be approached for information or contact even if they did not register. The findings indicate important policy and practice messages about the ongoing needs of donors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Donated sperm, eggs, and embryos are an increasing feature of assisted reproduction; people conceived in this way have different genetic and social histories. Although most offspring of donor-assisted conception are ignorant of their genetic history, recipient parents must negotiate increasing demand for full disclosure to offspring. This paper illustrates some of the reasons parents give for not telling their children, underlines the experience of many parents of being uncertain of how to go about telling, presents information from some parents who have endeavoured to be open with their children about conception from very early childhood, and discusses implications for the narrative identity of offspring of donor-assisted conception. Recipient parents (n=55) and offspring (12) from Australia; Canada, US, England, and Argentina were interviewed and subsequently consulted about the development of their narrative accounts and the way in which these have been interpreted. Parental narratives were found to be located along a continuum, broadly encompassing: (1) Parents who intend to exclude donor-assisted conception from the narratives they construct for their children, (2) parents who are uncertain about what they want to do, or confused about the best way to disclose and discuss donor conception with their children and (3) those have incorporated the donor in their children''s narratives from the beginning. From interviews with offspring and on the basis of human rights issues and the increasing salience of genetic knowledge, it is concluded that disclosure to offspring before adolescence should be encouraged. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

ABSTRACTIn this paper the authors, all experienced social workers with research and practice interests in assisted conception, review practices concerning access to genetic origins information in adoption, and consider to what extent these may be relevant for practice in donor-assisted conception. The paper concludes with policy and practice recommendations that take account of the views of donor offspring and their desire for increased information about their genetic heritage. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A forgotten group of donor-conceived persons is those who believe that gamete donation is morally wrong and should be prohibited. Although they share the two main arguments with the anti-anonymity group, i.e. the psychological harm as a consequence of lacking the necessary information for identity construction, and the violation of a fundamental human right, namely the right to be cared for by one's genetic parents, their voices are largely ignored in the debate. The anti-donation group also has a large part of the ideology of the family in common with the anti-anonymity group. The paper concludes that the anti-donation position should be accepted as an equivalent position. Moreover, given the similarities between the two positions, people who accept the claims of the anti-anonymity donor-conceived persons should explain why the claims of the anti-donation group should not be honoured., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology.)

Objective: To gain an in-depth understanding of parents' experiences telling children conceived by gamete and embryo donation about their genetic origins., Design: Qualitative, descriptive., Setting: Families' homes., Patients: Gamete or embryo donation recipient parents living in the United States and who told their children, from birth to 16 years, about their genetic origins., Interventions: Individual semistructured (n = 12) or dyadic (n = 2) parent interviews., Main Outcome Measures: Directed qualitative content analysis., Results: Fourteen families that comprised 16 gamete or embryo donation recipient parents and represented 24 donor-conceived children between the ages of 4 months and 16 years participated in the study. Single parents (n = 3) and both parents in most two-parent families (n = 9) led the initial telling conversations. Parents recounted personal short stories using language that was both developmentally and medically appropriate. Multiple strategies, including children's books, were used by parents to aid them in their telling. The oldest donor-conceived children in each family were first informed of their genetic origins at birth (n = 10 families) or at 6 months (n = 1 family; "practice runs") or from 3.5 to 12 years (n = 3 families). The telling conversations took place during routine family activities that naturally brought parents and children in close proximity, usually in the home., Conclusions: Awareness of the nuances of parents' telling conversations with their children through the age of 16 years can help guide clinical counseling and the development of tools to aid parents in their telling conversations., (© 2021 The Authors.)