Making connections

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

“…One significant area of variation that has only been touched upon in this paper is that of the qualitative difference between sperm and egg donation (Richards 2014): most of the empirical research and ethical discussion is implicitly or explicitly focused on sperm donation and yet regulation tends to generalise to both egg and sperm donation, or ‘gamete donation’. Discrepancies between egg and sperm donation are likely to become more significant in the context of donor identification (Freeman et al 2014c). Another significant variable is donor offspring age.…”

“…For example, children will likely develop a fuller understanding of the implications of donor conception at adolescence, a developmental phase when identity issues and conflict within parent-child relationships may also become more prevalent (Freeman and Golombok 2012b). Similarly, in adulthood, being donor conceived may take on different meanings; for example, becoming a parent oneself may lead to an enhanced interest in one’s own parentage and ‘genetic’ origins (Freeman et al 2014c).…”

“…sperm or egg donor; anonymous, identifiable or known) may influence both the likelihood of disclosure and the child’s perception of the donor. For example, considerably more sperm-donor conceived offspring express an interest in their donor than egg-donor conceived offspring and an increased interest in sperm donors has been found amongst families where there is no social father, especially solo mother families (Freeman et al 2014c). Further research is required to explore individual differences in children’s feelings about their donor, including the significance – or not – of having an identifiable or known donor compared to an anonymous one.…”

“…Indeed, there is some evidence that the experience of meetings between donor offspring and their donor is not always entirely positive for those involved and may invoke conflicting and ambivalent emotions (Jadva et al 2010). For example, in Victoria, Australia, which has one of the most advanced systems of mediating contact between offspring and their donors, the outcomes have been variable, with a lack of communication regarding expectations and boundaries between those seeking contact being one source of the more problematic aspects (Freeman et al 2014c): for example, cases where one party desires a high level of contact whilst the other wants none or a very limited information exchange could lead to disappointment for all involved. Thus whilst it may be concluded that contact between donor-conceived offspring and their donor may be beneficial for a child’s wellbeing, this finding is not generalizable and more in-depth research is required to ascertain what mechanisms contribute to positive and negative outcomes.…”

Integrating donor conception into identity development: adolescents in fatherless families

“…Although potentially beneficial to the process of meaning-making and identity development, engaging with various aspects of donor conception, such as searching for donor relations and initiating conversations about genetic origins, can be perceived as a threatening and intimidating process by both parents and children in donor-conceived families 13 , 26 . Given the value of safety within interpersonal relationships (27) , it is reasonable to expect that a child who has internalized their parent(s) as consistently supportive, even under stressful or threatening circumstances, is more likely to trust that the parent(s) can scaffold the exploration of their donor conception.…”