Search

Gestational surrogacy is ethically complex, generating very different responses in law and policy worldwide. This paper argues that contemporary surrogacy law and policy, across many jurisdictions, fail to give sufficient attention to the significance of the relationship between the child and the gestational surrogate. This failure risks repeating the mistakes of historical, discredited approaches to adoption and donor‐assisted conception. This paper argues that proper recognition of the significance of gestation must be an organising principle in surrogacy law and policy. The paper begins by pointing to examples of surrogacy law and practice where the role of the gestator is unacceptably minimised, most notably the framing of the surrogate as a mere 'carrier'. It goes on to examine the nature of gestation, including consideration of contemporary scholarship on the metaphysics of pregnancy and emerging work in epigenetics, and argues that current evidence supports the view that the gestational relationship must be taken more seriously than it currently is. The paper then draws analogies with parenthood in donor‐assisted conception and adoption to argue that approaches to parental status in novel family formations that fail to promote transparency and seek to deny the truth of familial relationships are doomed to fail. The paper concludes by suggesting some implications for law and policy that flow from placing sufficient emphasis on the gestational role. The overarching thesis of this paper is that gestational surrogacy is ethically permissible when these fundamental requirements are adhered to, and that surrogacy law should proceed on this basis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Anonymous gamete donation creates a specific conflict between human rights and public interests under Article 8 of the ECHR. This was first assessed in the ECtHR's landmark decision in Gauvin-Fournis and Silliau v. France of 7 September 2023. This article critically analyses this judgment, taking into account the European legal framework for anonymous gamete donation, the recommendations of the competent authorities and the previous case law of the ECtHR on the right to know one's biological origin as an integral part of one's identity that is protected under the right to private and family life. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: In 2015, assisted reproductive technology (ART) accounted for 1.7% of all U.S. births, donor eggs accounted for over 17,000 started cycles in 2015, and donor sperm accounting for 6.2% of all cycles started in 2014. With increasing utilization of donor gametes as a method of assisting patients with infertility, the number of babies born each year utilizing gamete donation will also continue to increase. This study aimed to elucidate factors impacting decision to donate, amongst a representative national population. Methods: A survey was distributed via the internet utilizing SurveyMonkey Enterprise with HIPAA compliance. Univariate regressions and frequencies were conducted between each demographic and personal characteristic and the willingness to donate. Log Binomial and linear regression was used categorical and continuous variables, and Risk ratios were calculated. Results: In this large survey study, 64% of men and 50% of women reported they would be willing to donate gametes, with the majority desiring monetary compensation. Men with a high Consumer Financial Protection Bureau score were less likely to report that they would consider donating sperm compared to a medium high CFPB score. No other financial indicators were associated with considering donating sperm. There were no associations between CFPB score and egg donation outcomes. Black or African American women were less likely to consider donating their eggs compared to other groups, and more likely to desire > $5000 in compensation. Conclusions: In this large survey study, a small minority of participants reported they would be willing to donate to an unknown infertility patient for reproductive purposes. High and very high CFPB scores were associated with willingness to donate games, but not with desire for monetary compensation or amount. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

STUDY QUESTION How are ART and IUI regulated, funded, and registered in European countries, and how has the situation changed since 2018? SUMMARY ANSWER Of the 43 countries performing ART and IUI in Europe, and participating in the survey, specific legislation exists in only 39 countries, public funding varies across and sometimes within countries (and is lacking or minimal in four countries), and national registries are in place in 33 countries; only a small number of changes were identified, most of them in the direction of improving accessibility, through increased public financial support and/or opening access to additional subgroups. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY The annual reports of the European IVF-Monitoring Consortium (EIM) clearly show the existence of different approaches across Europe regarding accessibility to and efficacy of ART and IUI treatments. In a previous survey, some coherent information was gathered about how those techniques were regulated, funded, and registered in European countries, showing that diversity is the paradigm in this medical field. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION A survey was designed using the SurveyMonkey tool consisting of 90 questions covering several domains (legal, funding, and registry) and considering specific details on the situation of third-party donations. New questions widened the scope of the previous survey. Answers refer to the situation of countries on 31 December 2022. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTINGS, METHODS All members of the EIM were invited to participate. The received answers were checked and initial responders were asked to address unclear answers and to provide any additional information considered relevant. Tables resulting from the consolidated data were then sent to members of the Committee of National Representatives of ESHRE, requesting a second check. Conflicting information was clarified by direct contact. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE Information was received from 43 out of the 45 European countries where ART and IUI are performed. There were 39 countries with specific legislation on ART, and artificial insemination was considered an ART technique in 33 of them. Accessibility is limited to infertile couples only in 8 of the 43 countries. In 5 countries, ART and IUI are permitted also for treatments of single women and all same sex couples, while a total of 33 offer treatment to single women and 19 offer treatment to female couples. Use of donated sperm is allowed in all except 2 countries, oocyte donation is allowed in 38, simultaneous donation of sperm and oocyte is allowed in 32, and embryo donation is allowed in 29 countries. Preimplantation genetic testing (PGT)-M/SR (for monogenetic disorders, structural rearrangements) is not allowed in 3 countries and PGT-A (for aneuploidy) is not allowed in 10; surrogacy is accepted in 15 countries. Except for marital/sexual situation, female age is the most frequently reported limiting criterion for legal access to ART: minimal age is usually set at 18 years and the maximum ranges from 42 to 54 with some countries not using numeric definition. Male maximum age is set in very few countries. Where third-party donors are permitted, age is frequently a limiting criterion (male maximum age ranging from 35 to 50; female maximum age from 30 to 37). Other legal restrictions in third-party donation are the number of children born from the same donor (or, in some countries, the number of families with children from the same donor) and, in 12 countries, there is a maximum number of oocyte donations. How countries deal with the anonymity is diverse: strict anonymity, anonymity just for the recipients (not for children when reaching legal adulthood age), a mixed system (anonymous and non-anonymous donations), and strict non-anonymity. Inquiring about donors' genetic screening showed that most countries have enforced either mandatory or scientific recommendations that exclude the most prevalent genetic diseases, although, again, diversity is evident. Reimbursement/compensation systems exist in more than 30 European countries, with around 10 describing clearly defined maximum amounts considered acceptable. Public funding systems are extremely variable. One country provides no financial assistance to ART/IUI patients and three offer only minimal support. Limits to the provision of funding are defined in the others i.e. age (female maximum age is the most used), existence of previous children, BMI, maximum number of treatments publicly supported, and techniques not entitled for funding. In a few countries reimbursement is linked to a clinical policy. The definitions of the type of expenses covered within an IVF/ICSI cycle, up to which limit, and the proportion of out-of-pocket costs for patients are also extremely dissimilar. National registries of ART are in place in 33 out of the 43 countries contributing to the survey and a registry of donors exists in 19 of them. When comparing with the results of the previous survey, the main changes are: (i) an extension of the beneficiaries of ART techniques (and IUI), evident in nine countries; (ii) public financial support exists now in Albania and Armenia; (iii) in Luxembourg, the only ART centre expanded its on-site activities; (iv) donor-conceived children are entitled to know the donor identity in six countries more than in 2018; and (v) four more countries have set a maximum number of oocyte donations. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION Although the responses were provided by well-informed and committed individuals and submitted to double checking, no formal validation by official bodies was in place. Therefore, possible inaccuracies cannot be excluded. The results presented are a cross-section in time, and ART and IUI frameworks within European countries undergo continuous modification. Finally, some domains of ART activity were deliberately left out of the scope of this survey. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS Our results offer a detailed updated view of the ART and IUI situation in European countries. It provides extensive answers to many relevant questions related to ART usage at the national level and could be used by institutions and policymakers at both national and European levels. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S) The study has no external funding, and all costs were covered by ESHRE. There were no competing interests. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To assess the attitude and willingness of medical students of the Faculty of Medicine, University of Jaffna, regarding gamete donation. Methods: An institutional-based descriptive cross-sectional study was conducted at the Faculty of Medicine, University of Jaffna, from September 2022 to May 2023 among undergraduate medical students who gave their voluntary participation. A self-administered questionnaire was used as a study instrument to collect data regarding their attitude and willingness toward gamete donation. Results: A total of 345 participants were recruited and their sociodemographic data revealed that 56.8% of the participants were female, 62.3% aged between 26 and 30 years, and 92.2% were unmarried. Many of them received information regarding gamete donations during their clinical appointments. Over half (67.8%) of them showed a negative attitude towards gamete donation. Regarding willingness, only 39.7% of participants had a positive approach for being a gamete donor; among them, 84.7% preferred anonymous donations. Religion and ethnicity had a significant influence on their attitudes and willingness. In addition, male was also found to be more willing to donate gametes. Conclusions: Most medical students have negative views about gamete donation. Imparting awareness and knowledge of assisted reproductive technology and gamete donation within medical students’ sociocultural and ethical backgrounds might facilitate a change in attitude towards gamete donation amongst future medical practitioners.

BACKGROUND Disclosure of donor conception has been advocated in several jurisdictions in recent years, especially in those that practice identity-release donation. However, research on disclosure decisions has not been consolidated systematically in the last 10 years to review if parents are telling and what factors may be impacting their decisions. OBJECTIVE AND RATIONALE Are parents disclosing to their donor-conceived children, and what factors have influenced their disclosure decisions across different contexts and family forms in the last 10 years? SEARCH METHODS A bibliographic search of English-language, peer-reviewed journal articles published between 2012 and 2022 from seven databases was undertaken. References cited in included articles were manually scrutinized to identify additional references and references that cited the included articles were also manually searched. Inclusion criteria were articles focused on parents (including heterosexual, single mothers by choice, same-sex couples, and transsexual) of donor-conceived persons in both jurisdictions with or without identity-release provisions. Studies focused solely on surrogacy, donors, donor-conceived persons, or medical/fertility staff were excluded as were studies where it was not possible to extract donor-recipient parents' data separately. Both quantitative and qualitative studies were included. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines were followed and Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Tools for Systematic Reviews were used to assess article quality and bias. OUTCOMES Thirty-seven articles met the inclusion criteria representing 34 studies and 4248 parents (including heterosexual, single, same-sex, and transsexual parents although the majority were heterosexual) from countries with anonymous donation and those with identity-release provisions or who had subsequently enacted these provisions (Australia, Belgium, Finland, France, Hong Kong, Middle East, Spain, Sweden, the UK, and the USA) A general trend towards disclosure was noted across these groups of parents with most disclosing to their donor-conceived children before the age of 10 years. Further, the majority of those who had not yet told, reported planning to disclose, although delayed decisions were also associated with lower disclosure overall. Same-sex and single parents were more likely to disclose than heterosexual parents. There was recognition of disclosure as a process involving ongoing conversations and that decisions were impacted by multiple interacting intrapersonal, interpersonal, and external contextual and social factors. Methodological limitations, such as the different population groups and contexts from which participants were drawn (including that those parents who choose not to disclose may be less likely to participate in research), are acknowledged in integrating findings. WIDER IMPLICATIONS This review has reinforced the need for a theoretical model to explain parents' disclosure decisions and research exploring the role of legislative provisions, culture, and donor/family type in decision-making. Greater ongoing access to psychological support around disclosure may be important to promote parent and family well-being. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Assisted Reproductive Technologies (ARTs) have been practiced in Islamic societies within married couples since their introduction. However, there are divergent views over the issue of third-party donation among Sunni and Shia scholars. This paper illustrates the different perspectives of Shia Muslims surrounding, sperm, egg, and embryo donation and ethical aspects thereof. The study reveals that there are different views regarding sperm, egg, and embryo donation among the Shia religious leaders around the world. Many Shia religious scholars, including the Iranian supreme religious leader Ali Hussein Khamenei allow sperm, egg, and embryo donation with certain conditions. However, the conditions stipulated by Shia religious scholars contradict the ethical and legal practices of sperm, egg, and embryo donation. Regarding sperm and egg donation, they declared that the donor child would inherit from a third-party donor and the commissioning parents would be adoptive parents. Thus, according to them, donor anonymity is impossible. Moreover, the Iranian act on embryo donation did not stipulate the right and responsibilities of the donor child and recipient couples and did not clarify the nature and number of embryos that can be donated and implanted. The paper argues that the lack of laws and guidelines on sperm, egg, and embryo donation raises many ethical problems. Based only on religious rulings, third-party donation has been practiced without foreseeing the well-being and safety of donor children, donors, and recipient couples. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

STUDY QUESTION What are parents' perceptions of their relationships with and the psychosocial adjustments of their children who are born via embryo donation? SUMMARY ANSWER Families created through embryo donation have well-adjusted parent–child relationships and reassuring child psychosocial outcomes. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY Embryo donation is an effective and growing form of third-party reproduction, but there is limited research in this field. Prior studies suggest that families created through gamete donation function well regarding parent–child relationship quality and child behavioral and socioemotional adjustment. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION This is a cross-sectional survey study with 187 total participants. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS Parents of children born via embryo donation were recruited nationally by contacting all embryo donation programs registered with the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology Clinic Outcome Reporting System (SART CORS) as well as medically directed embryo donation or 'embryo adoption' centers. Participants completed three online Qualtrics questionnaires. The first was a survey including 33 questions on demographics, the procurement process, and self-reported obstetric outcomes. Participants also completed two standardized measures assessing children's behavior and parents' adjustment to parenthood: the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) and the Parental Acceptance-Rejection Questionnaire (PARQ). Scoring of the SDQ and PARQ was totaled and compared to standardized values (SDQ) or previously published results on other forms of gamete donation (PARQ), such as oocyte donation and sperm donation. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE On the SDQ (n = 46), the average total difficulties scores by age were: 8.2 ± 0.98 for ages 2–4, 7.6 ± 0.93 for ages 5–10, and 3.5 ± 0.77 for ages 11–17; this is compared to the normal reported range of 0–13, which indicates that clinically significant psychosocial problems are unlikely. Across all ages and individual categories (emotional symptoms, conduct problem, hyperactivity, peer problem, prosocial), scores on the SDQ were within the normal ranges. The average PARQ score (n = 70) for all respondents was 27.5 ± 1.18 (range: 24–96), suggesting perceived parental acceptance. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION Because this study was cross-sectional, it could not capture familial relationships over time. This survey-based study design allows for potential selection bias (parents of well-adjusted children may be more likely to participate). Additionally, the overall sample size is relatively small; however, it remains one of the largest published to date. Another significant limitation to this study is the lack of generalizability: most participants were recruited from private, faith-based, embryo donation programs who are demographically similar. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS Though embryo donation is an established form of third-party reproduction, it is significantly less robustly studied compared to other forms of gamete donation (oocyte or sperm donation). This study provides a larger data set with a more expanded age range of children compared to the limited number of previously published studies. Furthermore, these findings indicate a high parental disclosure rate with respect to the use of embryo donation which contrasts previous findings. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S) No external funding source was utilized for the completion of this study. No conflicts are disclosed. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER N/A. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Many if not most sperm donors in the early years of IVF donated under conditions of anonymity. There is, however, a growing awareness of the ethical cost of withholding identifying parental information from donor children. Today, anonymous donation is illegal in many jurisdictions, and some jurisdictions have gone as far as retrospectively invalidating contracts whereby donors were guaranteed anonymity. This article provides a critical evaluation of the ethics and legality of anonymous donation. We defend Australian and British legislation that has outlawed donor anonymity, and we argue for the establishment of a central registry that provides donor children with the ability to easily and reliably access identifying information about their donor parents. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Markets for international surrogacy often arise in jurisdictions with limited regulations regarding assisted reproductive technologies. In some countries, like Australia, regulated domestic surrogacy services are often sidestepped for international providers. This study describes how Australian intended parents decide where to pursue surrogacy and compares the characteristics and outcomes of arrangements completed within and outside of Australia. The findings show that, although intended parents preferred undergoing surrogacy in Australia, perceiving the process as too long and complicated was a common reason to pursue an international arrangement. Multiple embryo transfer, anonymous gamete donation, and a lack of counselling were common in international surrogacy arrangements. When compared to surrogacy arrangements completed in Australia, where single embryo transfer is mandatory for surrogacy cycles, the rates of multiple birth, preterm birth and neonatal intensive care in international surrogacy were higher. These findings raise concerns about the health and welfare of international surrogacy participants, particularly the surrogates and children. In lieu of any international instrument regulating surrogacy, improving access to surrogacy at a domestic level would reduce the number of people engaging with international arrangements and in turn, reduce the potential for harm. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The question of whether donors should be able to set conditions on who can receive their tissue has been discussed by bioethicists, but so far there has been little consideration of whether the answer to this question should be different depending on the type of tissue under discussion. In this article, we compare the donation of organs with the donation of reproductive material such as sperm, eggs, and embryos, exploring possible arguments for allowing donors to set conditions in one case but not the other. After considering arguments from procreative liberty, special parental obligations, and donors meeting their genetic offspring, we find that there is no ethically defensible reason to have different policies between these two cases. As a consequence, we conclude that jurisdictions operating with this inconsistency should consider moving their policies into better alignment. We also make some recommendations for the standardisation of the terminology around conditional donation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Genetic testing of gamete donors is becoming increasingly comprehensive and now often includes expanded carrier screening. Some argue that testing has gone too far, whereas others propose that testing is not extensive enough. Thinking critically about how much genetic testing is appropriate for gamete donors is crucial for ensuring that market forces alone do not determine the level of testing that is performed. The goal of this paper is to highlight contradictions in the current approach toward genetic testing of gamete donors and to suggest that we either embrace the value of preventing the birth of children with hereditary diseases and do so in a logical and consistent manner or consider reducing our level of genetic testing for gamete donors. The Food and Drug Administration requires screening for infectious diseases and the American Society for Reproductive Medicine recommends screening for a small number of common recessive conditions. However, private donor banks are increasingly performing karyotype testing and expanded carrier screening. There are 2 major inconsistencies in our current approach to genetic testing of gamete donors: (1) if genetic information is valued by gamete recipients, why should testing stop with recessive conditions, and not expand to dominant conditions or even polygenic risk scoring? (2) Why should gamete donors be asked to undergo testing that may or may not be reciprocated by gamete recipients? Addressing these inconsistencies requires us to consider the ultimate goal of testing gamete donors' genes. We argue that the present, default goal is empowerment of gamete recipients, whereas an alternative and more laudable mission is to avoid preventable, heritable disease in offspring. However, the latter brings its own ethical and practical challenges, including the issue of which diseases are worth preventing. A more comprehensive and well-reasoned approach to genetic testing of gamete donors is needed. Otherwise, testing will continue to be haphazard and guided by the free market, rather than deeper societal values. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To our knowledge, there have been few discussions in the andrology literature regarding the ethics of disclosure to donor conceived children. Our goal in this paper is to summarize the main reasons in favor of disclosure to engender more conversations about the ethics of donor conception in andrology circles. Specifically, we argue (1) transparency regarding gamete donation upholds the ethical principle of beneficence by improving the psychological health of donor conceived children; and (2) based on the ethical principle of autonomy, donor conceived children should have the right to know their donor status. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An important argument against removing donor anonymity is that such state-mandated policies might validate bionormative attitudes about the importance of genetic relatedness in families. Bionormative attitudes can be unjustly disparaging and harmful to a wide range of families including donor-conceived, adopted, and single-parent families. However, studies show that the majority of donor-conceived individuals want donor anonymity removed. This paper explores the question of how to weigh these desires for knowing the donor—which may be grounded in biased and bionormative assumptions—against the competing concern that removing donor anonymity perpetuates attitudes that may be harmful. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Lex Medicinae: Revista Portuguesa de Direito da Saúde is the property of Centro de Direito Biomedico 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.)

STUDY QUESTION Are the early pregnancy outcomes of IVF pregnancies conceived with donor sperm different to those conceived with partner sperm? SUMMARY ANSWER Pregnancies conceived with donor sperm have a lower odds of early pregnancy loss and ectopic pregnancy compared to pregnancies conceived with partner sperm. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY The number of cycles using donor sperm has risen significantly in recent years. Adverse early pregnancy outcomes have a negative impact on women and their partners. The evidence available to date regarding early pregnancy outcomes for pregnancies conceived with IVF donor sperm is limited by low numbers and lower-quality studies. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION This is a retrospective cohort study of 1 376 454 cycles conceived with either donor or partner sperm between 1991 and 2016 as recorded in the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) Register. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS The HFEA has recorded data on all fertility treatments carried out in the UK from 1991 onwards, and it publishes this data in an anonymized form. This study assessed the outcomes of all pregnancies conceived with donor sperm and compared them to those conceived with partner sperm among IVF cycles recorded in the HFEA anonymized dataset from 1991 to 2016. Cycles that included intrauterine insemination, donor oocytes, preimplantation genetic testing, oocyte thaw cycles and alternative fertility treatments were excluded. The outcomes of interest were biochemical pregnancy, miscarriage, ectopic pregnancy, stillbirth and live birth. Logistic regression was used to adjust for confounding factors including age of the female partner, cause of infertility, history of previous pregnancy, fresh or frozen cycle, IVF or ICSI, number of embryos transferred, and year of treatment. Results are reported as adjusted odds ratios (aOR) and 95% CIs. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE This study found reductions in the odds of biochemical pregnancy (aOR 0.82, 95% CI 0.78–0.86), miscarriage (aOR 0.93, 95% CI 0.89–0.97), and ectopic pregnancy (aOR 0.77, 95% CI 0.66–0.90) among pregnancies as a result of the use of donor sperm as opposed to partner sperm. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION This study is retrospective and limited by the constraints of routinely collected data. No data were available for maternal characteristics such as BMI, smoking and partner age, which could all be potential confounders. Clustering of multiple pregnancies within women could not be accounted for as the data are reported only at the cycle level with no maternal identifiers. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS This study has demonstrated that there are no increased risks of adverse pregnancy outcome with donor sperm pregnancies. The reduction in miscarriage in pregnancies using donor sperm suggests that sperm could have a role in miscarriage, as the selection process for being accepted as donor is stringent. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S) No external funding was sought for this study. C.A. has received funding from Ferring to attend a UK meeting for trainees in reproductive Medicine. A.M. has received funding from Ferring, Cook, Merck Serono, Geodon Ritcher, and Pharmasure for speaking at, or attending, meetings relating to reproductive medicine. She has also participated in a Ferring advisory board. S.B. has received grants from Tenovus and the UK Medical Research Council. She has also been supported with a Medical Research Scotland PhD studentship. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER N/A. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Study questionWhat interests and experiences do donor-conceived adults have with respect to same-donor peers/siblings, when they share an open-identity sperm donor?Summary answerDonor-conceived young adults report considerable interest in, and primarily positive experiences with, their same-donor peers, with some finding 'people like me'.What is known alreadyThrough mutual-consent contact registries, director-to-consumer DNA testing and other means, donor-conceived people with anonymous (i.e. closed-identity) sperm donors are gaining identity-related information from, and establishing relationships with, people who share their donor.Study design size durationSemi-structured, in depth telephone and Skype interviews with 47 donor-conceived young adults were carried out over a 31-month period. Inclusion criteria were being one of the first adults for each donor to obtain their identity and being at least 1-year post donor-information release.Participants/materials setting methodsParticipants (aged 19-29 years, 68.1% women) were born to female same-sex couple parents (46.8%), a single mother (29.8%) or heterosexual couple parents (23.4%); all parents had conceived through the same US open-identity sperm donation program. The dataset was analyzed thematically and included interviews from only one participant per family. Each participant had a different donor.Main results and the role of chanceInterest in, and experiences with, same-donor peers suggested that they occupy a unique position in the lives of donor-conceived young adults who share their open-identity donor. Contact can provide identity-relevant information and support through the availability of relationships (whether actualized or potential), shared experiences, and easier relationships than with their donor. Most donor-conceived young adults felt positively about their contact experiences. Of those not yet linked, almost all expressed an interest to do so. Some had met the children raised by their donor. When asked, all expressed an interest in doing so.Limitations reasons for cautionInterviews were conducted with donor-conceived young adults who were uncommon in their generation in terms of: having an open-identity sperm donor; the majority knowing about their family's origins from childhood; and having parents that accessed at the time one of the only open-identity sperm donation programs. Further research is needed to assess applicability to all donor-conceived adults; findings may be more relevant to the growing number of people who have an open-identity donor and learned in childhood about their family's origins.Wider implications of the findingsParticipants were among the first generation of donor-conceived adults with an open-identity sperm donor. Their experiences and perspectives can provide essential guidance to programs and others with similar origins. Early disclosure of family origins and identifying the donor did not diminish the young adults' interest in their same-donor peers. Positive experiences suggest that the benefits of contact include not only identity-relevant information (through shared traits and experiences), but also relationships with and support from people who understand the uncommon experience of being donor conceived. Implications include the need to educate families and intended parents about the potential benefits of knowing others who are donor conceived, and the risk of unexpected linking across families by donors, regardless of donor-conceived person or family interest.Study funding/competing interestsThe study was funded by the Lesbian Health Fund of GLMA: Health Professionals Advancing LGBTQ Equality. The authors have no conflict of interest to declare.

Background: Infertility affects one-fifth to one-sixth of couples of reproductive age. Gamete donation is one option for managing infertility, but it is relatively unknown in the developing world. Objectives: To assess Nigerian undergraduate students' knowledge, attitude and willingness to participate in gamete donation for artificial insemination. Methods: A descriptive cross-sectional study was conducted among 160 undergraduate students using a semi-structured self-administered questionnaire. The respondents were recruited using a multi-stage sampling technique. Results: The mean age of the respondents was 21.5±3.2 years, with a range of 18-32 years. The majority (89.4%) of the respondents were single and were in the first year of study (56.3%). Almost all the respondents (96.3%) had heard about the practice of gamete donation, but only (38.7%) had overall good knowledge about it. Almost half (46.9%) of respondents had an overall positive attitude towards gamete donation, while only 37.5% were willing to participate. The class level of the respondents (p = 0.03) was significantly associated with poor knowledge of gamete donation, while age (p = 0.01) and gender (p < 0.001) were associated with a negative attitude. Age (p

This paper explores the relationship between the concept of the 'identity of the child' and legal parenthood. It examines the role of identity in the determination of legal parenthood in three contexts: (a) parental orders after surrogacy arrangements; (b) disputed paternity cases; and (c) the statutory rules in cases involving gamete donation. This paper argues that the concept of 'identity' plays an inconsistent role in the attribution of legal parenthood, because the concept lacks substantive content within judicial reasoning and the statutory framework. The understanding of identity, and the role it plays, appears to change in these different contexts to serve the different purposes that the law is trying to achieve. The reason for this inconsistency is that, despite the utilisation of the language of the 'child's identity', legal parenthood remains adult-centric and premised upon replicating the binary, two-parent model of the nuclear family. We argue that instead of appealing to this incoherent concept of 'identity', the courts should explicitly engage with different types of parenthood and acknowledge the importance of each for both children and parents. Such an approach would result in more truly child-centred reasoning and serve to diminish the predominance of the binary, two-parent model. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

STUDY QUESTION Is the outcome of donor recruitment influenced by the country in which recruitment took place or the initial identity (ID)-release choice of applicants? SUMMARY ANSWER More applicants are accepted as donors in Denmark than in the USA and those who choose ID release are more frequently accepted than those who do not. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY The successful recruitment of sperm donors is essential to provide a range of medically assisted reproduction (MAR) procedures, which rely upon donor sperm. However, while much has been written about the medical screening and assessment of sperm donors from a safety perspective, relatively little has been written about the process of recruiting donors and how it works in practice. There are differences in demographic characteristics between donors who choose to allow their identity to be released to their donor offspring (ID release) compared to those who do not (non-ID release). These characteristics may also influence the likelihood of them being recruited. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION A total of 11 712 men applied to be sperm donors at a sperm bank in Denmark and the USA during 2018 and 2019. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS Anonymized records of all donor applicants were examined to assess the number passing through (or lost) at each stage of the recruitment process. Statistical analysis was carried out to examine differences between location (Denmark or USA) and/or donor type (ID release versus non-ID release). MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE Few applicants (3.79%) were accepted as donors and had samples frozen and released for use; this was higher in Denmark (6.53%) than in the USA (1.03%) (χ2 = 243.2; 1 degree of freedom (df); z  = 15.60; P  < 0.0001) and was higher in donors who opted at the outset to be ID release (4.70%) compared to those who did not (3.15%) (χ2 = 18.51; 1 df; z  = 4.303; P  < 0.0001). Most candidate donors were lost during recruitment because they: withdrew, failed to respond, did not attend an appointment, or did not return a questionnaire (54.91%); reported a disqualifying health issue or failed a screening test (17.41%); did not meet the eligibility criteria at the outset (11.71%); or did not have >5 × 106 motile sperm/ml in their post-thaw samples (11.20%). At each stage, there were statistically significant differences between countries and the donor's initial ID choice. During recruitment, some donors decided to change ID type. There were no country differences in the frequency in which this occurred (χ2 = 0.2852; 1 df; z  = 0.5340; P  = 0.5933), but it was more common for donors to change from non-ID release to ID release (27.19%) than the other way around (11.45%) (χ2 = 17.75; 1 df; z  = 4.213; P  < 0.0001), although movements in both directions did occur in both countries. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION No information was available about the demographic characteristics of the applicants, which may also have influenced their chances of being accepted as a donor (e.g. ethnicity and age). Donor recruitment procedures may differ in other locations according to local laws or guidelines. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS A better understanding of when and why candidate donors are lost in the recruitment process may help develop leaner and more efficient pathways for interested donors and sperm banks. This could ultimately increase the number of donors recruited (through enhanced information, support, and reassurance during the recruitment process) or it may reduce the financial cost to the recipients of donor sperm, thus making it more affordable to those who are ineligible for state-funded treatment. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S) The study received no funding from external sources. All authors are Cryos employees or members of the Cryos External Scientific Advisory Committee. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER N/A. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The impact of culture and religion on sexual and reproductive health and behavior has been a developing area of study in contemporary time. Therefore, it is crucial for people using reproductive procedures to understand the religious and theological perspectives on issues relating to reproductive health. This paper compares different perspectives of three Abrahamic faiths, i.e., Judaism, Christianity, and Islam on ARTs. Procreation, family formation, and childbirth within the context of marriage have all been advocated by these three major religions of the world. Judaism permits the use of all assisted reproductive technologies when the oocyte and sperm come from the husband and wife, respectively. The different denominations of Christianity have diverse views on reproductive practices. Although the Vatican does not approve of assisted reproduction, Protestant, Anglican, and other religious groups are free to use it. ARTs are acceptable in Sunni Islam, although they can only be carried out if the couples are married. Shia Islam, however, permits third-party donations to married couples under specific restrictions. This comparison reveals that while the three major world religions utilize assisted reproduction in distinct ways, there are also many comparable aspects of each religion. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Is there a relationship between disclosure and psychological adjustment in heterosexual-couple families following oocyte donation and sperm donation when the child is 7 years old? This was a cross-sectional study of heterosexual couples with 7- to 8-year-old children conceived with identity-release oocyte donation (n = 83, response rate 56%) or sperm donation (n = 113, response rate 65%). Participants individually completed instruments for the assessment of parents' emotional distress (HADS), parenting stress (SPSQ) and relationship quality (ENRICH), and their child's psychological adjustment (SDQ-Swe) and reported whether they had talked with their child about their donor conception. About half of parents had talked with their child about their donor conception (oocyte donation 61%, sperm donation 58%). Separate analyses for mothers and fathers showed no main effects of disclosure or type of donation on the outcomes, nor were there any interaction effects. Overall, mothers and fathers in oocyte donation and sperm donation families were found to be well adjusted, reporting within-normal range levels of anxiety, depression and parental stress, and a high relationship quality. The children were well adjusted, with low levels of emotional and behavioural problems. Overall, the present results confirm previous research indicating that early disclosure of the donor conception to children is not associated with negative outcomes for parents or children. Heterosexual couples using oocyte or sperm donation should be informed that disclosure when the child is 7–8 years old is not detrimental to the psychological adjustment of families. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The moral acceptability of anonymous gamete donation remains contested. Although the view that the value of parent–child relationships should not depend on genetic ties is "nearly axiomatic" among philosophers and bioethicists, one well‐known dissenter remains: David Velleman. I argue that most rebuttals to Velleman have simply talked past him because they have failed to understand his fundamental point—that donor conception is a violation of human dignity and as such is wrong even if it does not harm individuals. I challenge Velleman on his own terms by endorsing his metaphysical picture before showing that donor conception is not necessarily a violation of human dignity. I show this by arguing that gamete donation is held to a double standard of self‐knowledge. I develop an account of the self that recognizes that certain kinds of challenges to one's flourishing can contribute to an individual's strength and self‐knowledge. I defend my view against objections that genetic knowledge is categorically different from other ways of knowing oneself and I show that donor conception can respect human dignity as long as it meets certain conditions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Study Question: What are the experiences of same-sex mothers following identity-release sperm donation regarding equal treatment in society, parenting stress and disclosure to child?Summary Answer: Mothers predominantly reported equal treatment in society, low levels of parenting stress and early disclosure of the donor conception to the child, and half of the couples had also informed the child of his/her right to obtain the donor's identity.What Is Known Already: The number of two-mother families is increasing, and previous studies have reported about challenges related to heteronormativity, discrimination and the status of the non-birth mother. Same-sex mothers have been found to disclose the child's donor conception earlier than different-sex parents, but little is known regarding disclosure of the child's right to obtain identifying information about the donor.Study Design, Size, Duration: The present study concerns the fourth wave of data collection of a nation-wide longitudinal study. A total of 143 same-sex mothers (73% response rate) following identity-release sperm donation completed individual surveys when their donor-conceived child had reached age 7. These women represent a total of 82 couples who had undergone sperm donation treatment.Participants/materials, Setting, Methods: The study is part of the longitudinal Swedish Study on Gamete Donation (SSGD). Couples accepted for gamete donation treatment at seven Swedish University hospitals were recruited between 2005 and 2008 and were requested to complete postal surveys during four waves of data collection. The present study sample includes same-sex mothers who completed a survey when their donor-conceived child had reached 7 years of age. Data were collected with the Swedish Parenting Stress Questionnaire (SPSQ), and study-specific items on experiences of treatment in society and disclosure behavior. Group comparisons (birth mothers vs non-birth mothers) were conducted using Chi2-tests, independent t-tests and Mann-Whitney U-tests, and written comments provided for open-response items were analyzed by qualitative content analysis.Main Results and Role Of Chance: The mothers were generally open about the child's donor conception and the large majority (>80%) reported being treated positively and in the same way as other parents. However, satisfaction with treatment in health care settings was significantly lower than that reported in contacts with the child's school and recreational activities (P < 0.001) and open-response comments indicate that this may be related predominantly to heteronormative language and assumptions. Birth mothers and non-birth mothers reported similar treatment in society and similar levels of parenting stress. All but one couple had already talked with their 7-year-old child about his/her conception with donor sperm. Half of the couples had also informed the child about his/her opportunity to obtain identifying information about the donor, and remaining couples planned later disclosure. Children's reactions were generally described as neutral, positive or characterized by interest and curiosity.Limitations, Reasons For Caution: The present study was performed within the context of the Swedish legislation on identity-release donation, which limits the generalizability to same-sex couples using anonymous or known sperm donors. Although no evidence of attrition bias was found, it is possible that those couples who initially declined participation in the SSGD (23%) or dropped out at the fourth wave of data collection (27%) differ from the study sample in terms of variables that we were unable to control for.Wider Implication Of the Findings: The present finding that most same-sex mothers in a population-based sample experience equal treatment in society is encouraging and validates previous results from predominantly qualitative studies. Nevertheless, the fact that a subgroup experiences discrimination and less favorable treatment indicates that further action is needed, particularly in child health care settings. The present study is the first to report on the timing of parents' disclosure of the child's right to identifying donor information and suggests that disclosure during preschool ages is feasible and does not appear to be related to negative consequences. In view of the increased availability and use of identity-release donation, there is a pressing need to investigate parents' intentions, behaviors and needs with regard to talking with their child about his/her opportunity to obtain the donor's identity.Study Funding/competing Interest(s): Financial support from the Swedish Research Council (2013-2712) and the Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life and Welfare (2014-00876). There are no conflicts of interest to declare.Trial Registration Number: N/A. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Shared motherhood IVF, poly parenthood, lesbian motherhood, gestational surrogacy, assisted reproduction, IUI, artificial insemination, gamete donation Keywords: shared motherhood IVF; poly parenthood; lesbian motherhood; gestational surrogacy; gamete donation; assisted reproduction; IUI; artificial insemination EN shared motherhood IVF poly parenthood lesbian motherhood gestational surrogacy gamete donation assisted reproduction IUI artificial insemination 777 779 3 05/04/23 20230501 NES 230501 The increasing accessibility of ART over the past 45 years has expanded the possibility for couples to have children genetically related to at least one parent despite infertility or a predisposition to passing on heritable genetic conditions. [Extracted from the article]

Purpose: Since the end of February 2020, SARS-CoV-2 dramatically spread in Italy. To ensure that most of National Health System (NHS) resources were employed to control the pandemic, non-urgent medical procedures (including IVF) were suspended in March 2020. Here, we aimed at assessing the impact of the restrictive measures on Italian IVF activity. Methods: In May 2020, the Italian ART Register launched an online survey (multiple choices and open answers) across ART centers (89.0% response rate; N = 170/191) to investigate how they were facing the emergency and estimate the reduction in their activity. In February 2022, the official data of the whole 2020 were published and retrospectively analyzed. The ART cycles conducted in Italy in 2020 (67,928 by 57,423 patients) were then compared to those conducted in 2019 (82,476 by 67,633 patients). The estimates formulated through the survey were compared to the actual reduction. Results: In 2020, 14,548 less IVF cycles were conducted with respect to 2019 (− 17.6% reduction). This led to 2539 fewer live births (− 19.8%) than 2019. If the reduction unveiled by the survey launched in May 2020 (i.e., − 35%) would have persisted throughout 2020, a significantly larger impact was expected (4200 less newborns). Instead, the activity was gradually recovered, and it compensated the months of greatest emergency, thus fulfilling the most optimistic scenario. Conclusions: Italy suffers from the lowest birth rate in Europe, and COVID-19 impact on IVF-derived live births testified how key ART is for Italian demographics. The government should support access to these treatments with dedicated actions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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]

STUDY QUESTION In a non-commercial national gamete donation programme, do the motivations and personality characteristics of candidate sperm and oocyte donors differ according to their parenthood status? SUMMARY ANSWER Moderate differences exist between non-parent and parent candidate donors in motivations for gamete donation and representations as well as in personality characteristics. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY Several studies have analysed the motivations and experiences of oocyte or sperm donors, but mainly in countries where gamete donation is a commercial transaction, and very few studies have reported results of personality traits using personality inventory tests. No study has specifically investigated the motivations and personality characteristics of candidate gamete donors according to parenthood status. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION A prospective study was carried out including 1021 candidate donors from 21 centres (in university hospitals) of the national sperm and egg banking network in France between November 2016 and December 2018. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS In total, 1021 candidate gamete donors were included in the study. During their first visit, male (n = 488) and female candidate donors (n = 533) completed a questionnaire on sociodemographic characteristics, their motivations for donation and their representations of donation, infertility and family. Secondly, a NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) exploring the Big Five personality traits was completed online. Results were compared between parent and non-parent candidate donors. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE Altruistic values were the principal motive for donation irrespective of parenthood status. Reassurance about their fertility or preservation of sperm for future use was more often reported in non-parent than in parent candidate donors. With regard to representation of gamete donation or of the family, independently of their parenthood status, candidate donors more frequently selected social rather than biological representations. Mean personality characteristics were in the normal range. Non-parent candidate donors had higher scores on openness and depression than parents, while parent candidate donors appeared more social than non-parents. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION The personality characteristics inventory was not completed by all candidate donors included in the study. However, family status did not differ between the two groups (NEO-PI-R completed (n = 525) or not), while the group who completed the NEO-PI-R had a higher educational level. This national study was performed in a country where gamete donation is subject to strict legislation. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS In a global context where reproductive medicine is commercialized and gamete donor resources are limited, this study found that altruism and social representations of gamete donation and family are the main motivations for gamete donation in a country which prohibits financial incentive. These findings are relevant for health policy and for gamete donation information campaigns. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S) Grant from the Agence de la Biomédecine, France. The authors have nothing to disclose related to this study. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER N/A. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Research using gametes and embryos donated by reproductive and third-party donors contributed to substantial, albeit contentious achievements. The views of gamete donors and recipients on donation for research and the underpinning role of attitudes towards research have been seldom explored and are yet to be incorporated into ethical, legal, and regulatory landscapes. From a cultural standpoint, this study adapts and explores psychometric properties of the Portuguese version of the Research Attitudes Questionnaire (RAQ), and analyzes the willingness of gamete donors and recipients to donate gametes and embryos for research and its association with sociodemographic, reproductive characteristics, and attitudes towards research. Methods: Between July 2017 and June 2018, 71 donors and 165 recipients completed a self-administered questionnaire at the Portuguese Public Bank of Gametes. Willingness to donate and attitudes towards research were measured with a 5-point Likert scale. RAQ psychometric characteristics were explored. Results: Two RAQ components were identified: "trustworthiness of research" and "critical perspective". Most participants were willing to donate gametes and embryos: donors more willing to donate gametes and male recipients more willing to donate gametes and embryos. Higher RAQ scores, indicating a more positive attitude towards research, were observed on the component "trustworthiness of research" among those willing to donate gametes and embryos and on the component "critical perspective" among those willing to donate embryos. Conclusion: These findings help foster inclusivity, diversity, and responsiveness of research and call for upstream engagement of male and female gamete donors and recipients, promoting a trustworthy, anticipatory, democratic, and people-centered approach to policies, regulations, and practices in human gamete and embryo research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Due to the constant development of medicine and biotechnology, including the in vitro procedure, more and more infertile couples can fulfil their desire to have a child. Traditional rules of family law concerning the determination of status familiae of such children have then turned out to be insufficient. The situation is even more complicated when IVF procedure assumes the use of donated genetic material or the involvement of a surrogate mother. Therefore in the field of family law the intention to "create" a child starts to play quite an important role. Family law is then undergoing far-reaching transformations, especially in those countries where same-sex couples are eligible to start IVF procedures (Great Britain, USA, Germany, Austria). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Due to the constant development of medicine and biotechnology, including the in vitro procedure, more and more infertile couples can fulfil their desire to have a child. Traditional rules of family law concerning the determination of status familiae of such children have then turned out to be insufficient. The situation is even more complicated when IVF procedure assumes the use of donated genetic material or the involvement of a surrogate mother. Therefore in the field of family law the intention to "create" a child starts to play quite an important role. Family law is then undergoing far-reaching transformations, especially in those countries where same-sex couples are eligible to start IVF procedures (Great Britain, USA, Germany, Austria). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This qualitative study focuses on the "underground" practices of Sunni Muslim physicians and patients who are performing and undergoing religiously prohibited third-party gamete donation. It is based on face-to-face interviews with two Sunni Muslim gynecologists and 25 Sunni Muslim women who underwent third-party gamete donation treatments and gave birth to a baby. The analysis of the interviews sheds light on patients' experiences regarding donation and explores the experiences of the gynecologists. The patients shared with us their inner conflict regarding childbearing using either donated sperm or a donated egg. They expressed a subversive attitude toward the religious authorities and the Islamic fatwa (religious ruling) that prohibits third-party gamete donation. The gynecologists provide fertility care involving third-party gamete donation despite Islamic religious prohibitions; in consequence, they suffer feelings of guilt for their actions. The study participants challenge accepted binary conceptions regarding the boundaries between religious laws and the desire to produce offspring, between what is allowed and what is forbidden, between guilt and happiness, and between the desire to maintain a marital relationship and the desire to comply with cultural–religious rules. Based on Gloria Anzaldua's theory of the borderlands, and the context-informed approach, this study underscores the importance of giving voice to Sunni Muslim patients who underwent third-party gamete donation treatments and contributes to a deeper understanding of their dilemma of finding a reproductive solution that does not run counter to religious values. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although single women and lesbian couples are given access to donor spermatozoa, all kinds of restrictions limit their actual use of donor insemination. These restrictions are frequently justified by the increase in safety (lowering the genetic risk) or well-being of donor-conceived persons. However, these restrictions directly result in stratified reproduction in which only the rich (those with the necessary financial means) and the straight (those who conform to dominant views of parenthood) are allowed to reproduce., (Copyright © 2024 Reproductive Healthcare Ltd. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Study Question: How are ART and IUI regulated, funded, and registered in European countries, and how has the situation changed since 2018?, Summary Answer: Of the 43 countries performing ART and IUI in Europe, and participating in the survey, specific legislation exists in only 39 countries, public funding varies across and sometimes within countries (and is lacking or minimal in four countries), and national registries are in place in 33 countries; only a small number of changes were identified, most of them in the direction of improving accessibility, through increased public financial support and/or opening access to additional subgroups., What Is Known Already: The annual reports of the European IVF-Monitoring Consortium (EIM) clearly show the existence of different approaches across Europe regarding accessibility to and efficacy of ART and IUI treatments. In a previous survey, some coherent information was gathered about how those techniques were regulated, funded, and registered in European countries, showing that diversity is the paradigm in this medical field., Study Design, Size, Duration: A survey was designed using the SurveyMonkey tool consisting of 90 questions covering several domains (legal, funding, and registry) and considering specific details on the situation of third-party donations. New questions widened the scope of the previous survey. Answers refer to the situation of countries on 31 December 2022., Participants/materials, Settings, Methods: All members of the EIM were invited to participate. The received answers were checked and initial responders were asked to address unclear answers and to provide any additional information considered relevant. Tables resulting from the consolidated data were then sent to members of the Committee of National Representatives of ESHRE, requesting a second check. Conflicting information was clarified by direct contact., Main Results and the Role of Chance: Information was received from 43 out of the 45 European countries where ART and IUI are performed. There were 39 countries with specific legislation on ART, and artificial insemination was considered an ART technique in 33 of them. Accessibility is limited to infertile couples only in 8 of the 43 countries. In 5 countries, ART and IUI are permitted also for treatments of single women and all same sex couples, while a total of 33 offer treatment to single women and 19 offer treatment to female couples. Use of donated sperm is allowed in all except 2 countries, oocyte donation is allowed in 38, simultaneous donation of sperm and oocyte is allowed in 32, and embryo donation is allowed in 29 countries. Preimplantation genetic testing (PGT)-M/SR (for monogenetic disorders, structural rearrangements) is not allowed in 3 countries and PGT-A (for aneuploidy) is not allowed in 10; surrogacy is accepted in 15 countries. Except for marital/sexual situation, female age is the most frequently reported limiting criterion for legal access to ART: minimal age is usually set at 18 years and the maximum ranges from 42 to 54 with some countries not using numeric definition. Male maximum age is set in very few countries. Where third-party donors are permitted, age is frequently a limiting criterion (male maximum age ranging from 35 to 50; female maximum age from 30 to 37). Other legal restrictions in third-party donation are the number of children born from the same donor (or, in some countries, the number of families with children from the same donor) and, in 12 countries, there is a maximum number of oocyte donations. How countries deal with the anonymity is diverse: strict anonymity, anonymity just for the recipients (not for children when reaching legal adulthood age), a mixed system (anonymous and non-anonymous donations), and strict non-anonymity. Inquiring about donors' genetic screening showed that most countries have enforced either mandatory or scientific recommendations that exclude the most prevalent genetic diseases, although, again, diversity is evident. Reimbursement/compensation systems exist in more than 30 European countries, with around 10 describing clearly defined maximum amounts considered acceptable. Public funding systems are extremely variable. One country provides no financial assistance to ART/IUI patients and three offer only minimal support. Limits to the provision of funding are defined in the others i.e. age (female maximum age is the most used), existence of previous children, BMI, maximum number of treatments publicly supported, and techniques not entitled for funding. In a few countries reimbursement is linked to a clinical policy. The definitions of the type of expenses covered within an IVF/ICSI cycle, up to which limit, and the proportion of out-of-pocket costs for patients are also extremely dissimilar. National registries of ART are in place in 33 out of the 43 countries contributing to the survey and a registry of donors exists in 19 of them. When comparing with the results of the previous survey, the main changes are: (i) an extension of the beneficiaries of ART techniques (and IUI), evident in nine countries; (ii) public financial support exists now in Albania and Armenia; (iii) in Luxembourg, the only ART centre expanded its on-site activities; (iv) donor-conceived children are entitled to know the donor identity in six countries more than in 2018; and (v) four more countries have set a maximum number of oocyte donations., Limitations, Reasons for Caution: Although the responses were provided by well-informed and committed individuals and submitted to double checking, no formal validation by official bodies was in place. Therefore, possible inaccuracies cannot be excluded. The results presented are a cross-section in time, and ART and IUI frameworks within European countries undergo continuous modification. Finally, some domains of ART activity were deliberately left out of the scope of this survey., Wider Implications of the Findings: Our results offer a detailed updated view of the ART and IUI situation in European countries. It provides extensive answers to many relevant questions related to ART usage at the national level and could be used by institutions and policymakers at both national and European levels., Study Funding/competing Interest(s): The study has no external funding, and all costs were covered by ESHRE. There were no competing interests., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology.)

With the continued expansion and commercialisation of fertility treatments, the selection and matching of donors have become more sophisticated and technologised. As part of this landscape, new form of genetic screening: 'expanded carrier screening' (ECS) is being offered as a technique to avoid the risk of donors passing on genetic conditions to future offspring. Allowing donors to be tested for hundreds of genetic conditions simultaneously, ECS marks a considerable departure from traditional 'family history' models of screening, which rely on an individual's knowledge of family health. There is growing evidence of a drive towards the use of ECS within the fertility sector, and a growing number of clinics are offering it for a fee, as part of an egg or sperm donation cycle or as an add-on to IVF treatment. In this article, we use methods of critical reflection to synthesise data from two studies to explore how ECS is being used to avoid genetic risk in IVF treatment using donor gametes. We suggest that ECS is a new form of repro-genetic selection-a selective reproductive technology-with specific and important implications for donors, recipients and clinicians and with the potential to reconfigure the scope and application of gamete donation. We examine these implications and conclude that the existing policy blind spot relating to this development in fertility treatment practice needs to be urgently addressed., (© 2024 The Author(s). Bioethics published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

The new law of 2021 reforms gamete donation. Anonymity remains between the partners but the child, when he/she reaches 18 years old, can know the identity of the third-party donor and have access to “non-identifying data”. Is it, as it is written in the law, a right of access to one’s “origins” ? [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Technology and the regulatory framework in which we practice and live are continually evolving. Shifting mores and the ease with which individuals can identify one another with the assistance of social media and deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) testing has necessitated the current change in medical terminology. For decades, gamete and embryo donors were referred to as "known" if they had a relationship with the intended parent(s) and "anonymous" if they were unknown to one another at the time of the donation. The American Society for Reproductive Medicine encourages all stakeholders with an interest in gamete and embryo donation to adopt directed (identified) in lieu of "known" and nonidentified in lieu of "anonymous" to more accurately describe the relationships between donors and recipients in this new era of social media and genetic information sharing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]