Donor information considered important to donors, recipients and offspring: an Australian perspective

Abstract

Donor conception research supports open-identity donor programmes and disclosure to donor-conceived offspring. This study examines Australian donors', recipients' and donor-conceived offspring's views on the importance of different types of biographical information about the donor. Participants (125 recipients, 39 donors (known, identity-release and anonymous), 23 donor-conceived offspring) completed an online or paper self-administered anonymous questionnaire. Individuals rated the importance of 15 types of biographical information and subsequently chose the three they deemed most important. All groups included donor's health history and name as key variables to be available to donor-conceived offspring. Recipients viewed the donor's decision to donate as important, donors thought their feelings about being contacted were important and donor-conceived offspring expressed an interest in the donor's own family. Sperm donors were less inclined to view the provision of information as important compared with offspring. For recipients, the importance of information became apparent once they had disclosed to their children. This is the first study to gauge Australian stakeholders' attitudes to release of information in the donor conception process. The findings support the move to open-identity donation systems and emphasize the importance of considering the varying perspectives of all stakeholders by policy developers.

Motivations and experiences of patients seeking cross-border reproductive care: the Australian and New Zealand context

“…Participants were cognizant of a child's rights to genetic heritage with a philosophy valuing transparency, honesty, and identity needs for the donor-conceived child and recognizing a child's right to disclosure about circumstances of conception and to biological knowledge. The results of this study are congruent with other studies showing that prospective recipient parents have donor information needs, including knowledge of biological lineage for their children (49)(50)(51) with an increasing proportion of recipient parents now wanting to disclose circumstances of conception (52). Whether donor information exchange needs can be reliably fulfilled through international CBRC donor conception programs, however, has not been put to the empirical test.…”

Open-Identity Sperm Donation: How Does Offering Donor-Identifying Information Relate to Donor-Conceived Offspring’s Wishes and Needs?

“…and studies that focused on the parents' rather than the offspring's perspective. A total of 10 studies that fulfilled our inclusion criteria were reviewed (Beeson, Jennings, and Kramer 2011;Jadva et al 2009Jadva et al , 2010Hertz, Nelson, and Kramer 2013;Mahlstedt, LaBounty, and Kennedy 2010;Rodino, Burton, and Sanders 2011;Scheib, Riordan, and Rubin 2005;Turner and Coyle 2000;Brewaeys 2001, 2003).…”

“…In a survey of Australian recipients, donors, and DC offspring, Rodino, Burton, and Sanders (2011) questioned the importance of different types of biographical donor information: name, date of birth, photo/age/health/physical characteristics/job/educational level at time of donation, family, donor motivation and times donated, hobbies and interests, cultural and religious background, and feelings regarding contact with the offspring. They found that the DC offspring (n=23) regarded all these types of information as important or very important.…”

Family building using donated gametes and embryos in the UK: Recommendations for policy and practice on behalf of the British Infertility Counselling Association and the British Fertility Society in collaboration with the Association of Clinical Embryologists and the Royal College of Nurses Fertility Nurses Forum

“…A small but growing body of research -mainly with those conceived through sperm donation -suggests that the kinds of information donor-conceived people would like about their donor is more personalised than factual information alone can provide (Kirkman, 2004a(Kirkman, , 2004bScheib et al, 2004;Rodino et al, 2010;Cushing, 2010;Blyth et al, 2012;Crawshaw & Dally, 2012) including:…”