Gamete donation, information sharing and the best interests of the child: an overview of the psychosocial evidence

Abstract

This paper overviews key empirical findings from social science research regarding the impact of gamete donation on child wellbeing. In particular, the paper addresses current regulatory debates concerning information sharing and the best interests of the child by considering psychosocial aspects of telling -or not telling -children about their donor conception and the identity of their donor. The paper identifies three core sets of empirical, ethical and policy concerns underpinning these debates relating to (i) the psychosocial impact of gamete donation per se on child wellbeing, (ii) the psychosocial impact of parental disclosure decisions on child wellbeing, and (iii) the psychosocial implications of donor identification for donor-conceived offspring. The paper illustrates how these concerns are framed by ideas about the significance -or not -of 'genetic relatedness'; ideas which have come to the fore in contemporary discussions about the potential consequences of donor-conceived individuals gaining access to their donor's identity. By drawing together research findings that may be pertinent to the regulation of gamete donation and information sharing, a further aim of this paper is to explore the potential use and misuse of empirical 'evidence' in ethical and policy debates. Whilst this paper starts from the premise that psychosocial data has a vital role in grounding normative discussions, it seeks to contribute to this dialogue by highlighting both the value and limitations of social science research. In particular, the paper argues for a cautious approach to applying psychosocial evidence to ethical issues that is sensitive to the caveats and nuances of research findings and the changing cultural and regulatory context.

Secrets and disclosure in donor conception

“…Despite parents’ initial intention not to tell their child how they were conceived events, which were often outside their control, resulted in disclosure and this type of situation is rarely discussed in debates about disclosure. Not intending to tell, ‘raises an immediate … risk of “accidental” disclosure which may have profoundly detrimental effects’ (Freeman : 56). People often tell others they are having infertility treatment and the existence of documents and medical histories conspire to make this knowledge ‘leaky’, the boundaries between what is known and unknown porous (Blyth ).…”

“…‘Early disclosure tends to be associated with more positive outcomes: if children are to be informed of their donor conception, the most favourable situation is to be told from an early age so they are never shocked by discovering this knowledge’. (Freeman : 54) A commonly reported response among those told young is curiosity (Jadva et al . ) with early disclosure being associated with ‘neutral’ to ‘positive’ impact on parent‐child relationships (Blake et al .…”

“…A growing body of research has examined the effects of disclosure of donor conception on relationships within families, and it is generally considered that relationships are not necessarily harmed by disclosure (Freeman 2015) as was previously thought. A key area of debate has been the timing of disclosure.…”

Disclosure of sperm donation: a comparison between solo mother and two-parent families with identifiable donors

“…These policy transitions have been accompanied by an increased cultural openness about donor conception, marked by a tidal change in public attitudes towards parental disclosure. Previous professional advice was for parents not to tell anyone, least of all their children, about their use of sperm donation; however, now the general consensus is that parental openness about donor conception, ideally in early childhood, is in the best interests of the child (Daniels, Taylor, 1993, Freeman, 2015, Nuffield Council on Bioethics, 2013). …”

“…Further follow-up studies are required to ascertain if this is realised in increased levels of parental disclosure in practice. Moreover, there is a tendency to pool together findings relating to egg donation and sperm donation, despite these different forms of gamete donation raising qualitatively different issues for parents and children (Freeman, 2015) and disclosure rates seeming to be higher in egg donation families (Blake et al., 2013). Furthermore, the conclusions about parental openness drawn from studies of families formed using identifiable donors have been extrapolated from studies of couples.…”