Organizing Openness: How UK Policy Defines the Significance of Information and Information Sharing about Gamete Donation

The opposite of a step parent – The genetics without any of the emotion: ‘sperm donors’ reflections on identity-release donation and relatedness

“…This focus on the child is in line with donation policy. As Gilman and Nordqvist (2018) argue, donation policy has been formed in a context where there is a legal presumption that it is best for a child to know the ‘truth’ about their genetic origins. They show that the particular form of openness embraced in UK policy prioritizes information sharing about donors with donor-conceived offspring, and frames gamete donation as significant only in terms of its reproductive potential and the interest donor-conceived people may have in learning more about their origins.…”

“…Although UK donors cannot request the identity of their offspring or initiate contact, it is still important to consider any needs and desires donors themselves may have about information exchange. As Gilman and Nordqvist (2018) argue, UK donation policy only considers disclosure of information about donor offspring to donors in terms of preparing the donor to share information with offspring and minimizing any disruption this might cause to donors’ own families. This study has shown that some sperm donors might be interested in information exchange and contact for their own purposes, looking forward to, and in some cases expecting, a chance to get to know their donor offspring and form a relationship with them.…”

“…Over the years the emphasis had changed from protecting the recipient couple (historically assumed to be heterosexual) to a donor-conceived person’s ‘right’ to knowledge of their genealogy ( Turkmendag, 2012 ). Indeed, Gilman and Nordqvist (2018) argue that the UK’s policy and decisions regarding openness in gamete donation have caused gamete donation to be seen purely in terms of its reproductive consequences and the emphasis placed on the interest that donor offspring may have in their origins. The framing of the removal of anonymity in terms of ‘the rights of the child’ has left the donors’ own interest in, and desire for, information exchange ignored ( Raes et al, 2013 , Graham et al, 2016a ).…”

Un/familiar connections: on the relevance of a sociology of personal life for exploring egg and sperm donation

“…Within the current field of policy-making and research on donors' attitudes towards their donor offspring (e.g. Crawshaw et al 2007, Daniels et al 2012, Jadva et al 2011, Speirs 2012, Wheatley 2017, there is a widespread (and understandable) assumption that this form of connection is what really matters (for a critical engagement with such understandings, see Gilman and Nordqvist 2018). If the act of donating is a way of forming social bonds, as suggested by Shaw (2007), it is, I think, an empirical question as to how that plays out.…”

Becoming Donor-Conceived

“…As a result, she feared that her children "won't know a quarter of their heritage, it will completely blank to them". In general, policies and regulations on information sharing and openness prioritise the connection between the donor-conceived and the donors (Gilman and Nordqvist 2018;Raes et al 2013). The relationship between donors as "grandparents" and the children of donor-conceived persons is not one that is currently highlighted in German or British laws, and "donor-conceived grandchildren" have no rights to access information about their "donor grandparents".…”