Search

This article asks how well new developments in family life are reflected in law and policy, with a particular focus on donor conception. There has been an unprecedented 'opening up' of family life in recent decades; this increased diversity is, at least in part, linked to developments in reproductive technologies, including gamete donation. In family lives touched by donation, genetic relations with 'donor connections' take genetic connectedness beyond traditional notions of kinship. There is not yet an established social script for how to understand what constitutes meaningful connectedness in reproductive donation. Focussing on the UK context specifically, where assisted conception is highly regulated, this article examines on the one hand, how UK law and policy portray meaningful connectedness in the context of donation, and, on the other hand, how well this fits with connectedness as experienced within egg and sperm donor communities. Drawing on original data from UK law and policy analysis, and empirical interview data with egg and sperm donors and their kin, our analysis shows important disparities between law and policy, and the empirical evidence, suggesting a need for an overhaul of UK donor conception law and policy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Contemporary UK egg and sperm donation exists in two predominant forms: (i) clinic-based, identity-release donation; and (ii) known donation, which can take place either inside or outside of the clinic context. Regulatory and clinical discussions of the latter currently focus, almost exclusively, on risk whereas identity-release is widely presented as the default route for both donors and recipients. Consequently, there is little support available for those potential donors and recipient parents who might prefer a known donor arrangement. In this commentary, we reflect on our sociological research with donors and parents through donor conception and argue that there are a number of reasons why known donation may, in some contexts, offer advantages over identity-release donation. Whilst this research also demonstrates that there can be challenges involved in known donation, these are not inevitable nor are challenges absent from identity-release routes. It is timely and important to question whether the current de-valuing of known donation compared with identity-release donation holds up to academic scrutiny. We argue for a more balanced approach in which the benefits and challenges of both known and identity-release routes are discussed with donors and recipients and for increased support for known donation in clinics and by regulatory bodies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]