Reconsidering the number of offspring per gamete donor in the Dutch open-identity system

Abstract

The introduction of legislation in the Netherlands in 2004 enabling donor offspring to identify and make contact with their donors has led to a need to reconsider the number of offspring that an individual semen donor may produce. To this end, we made a survey on the limits for offspring per donor in 29 different countries, distinguishing between systems with anonymous and open-identity sperm donation. We counted donations as individual offspring conceived, or as the number of women/families helped, by a single donor. The interests of the various participants in gamete donation in open-identity and anonymous systems are considered with some of the basic assumptions and interactions between the different parties that might be used to formulate reasonable guidelines. A number of recommendations are made.

Maximum number of children per sperm donor based on false paternity rate

“…[3] in a review of this question. One possible approach would be to establish this limit such that the risk of consanguinity due to the use of donated gametes equalled that due to cases of false paternity.…”

“…This limit is currently six children, but no objective justification has been offered for this figure, although when the Act was being drafted, there already existed several statistical models that made it possible to estimate the number of unions per year between descendants from the same donor [2]. This legal limit varies significantly between countries or regions, ranging from one child per donor in Taiwan to 25 per 800,000 inhabitants in the USA [3].…”

Evolving minimum standards in responsible international sperm donor offspring quota

“…As a starting point for our discussions, it was noted that the existing national quota in different countries ranges from one (Taiwan) to no limits (Canada, Sweden) (Janssens et al, 2011). In some countries, professionals formulated the standards whereas in others politicians and Governments responding to 'public' concerns proclaimed the directives and laws.…”

“…In some countries, professionals formulated the standards whereas in others politicians and Governments responding to 'public' concerns proclaimed the directives and laws. The wide range of quotas suggests that different arguments have been used in different countries, but also reflects variation in cultures, including the weight given to science, religion, professional insights, beliefs about kinship structures and public opinion on management of matters in reproductive medicine (Gong et al, 2009;Janssens et al, 2011;Van Hoof and Pennings, 2012). The international use of donor sperm may differ in some characteristics from the national use of gametes (Table 1), although some arguments playing a role in national donor quota are likely to be relevant for international donor quota as well.…”

“…Most countries regulate the assisted reproduction technique activities within their borders (Gong et al, 2009;Janssens et al, 2011). Cross-border activities, however, with some rare exceptions (Spanish guidelines, German guidelines; Codigo ethico de la SEF, 2012; Thorn and Wischmann, 2013) defy national recommendations, regulation and supervision.…”