Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 3/2015

01-09-2015 | Original Research

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

Authors: An Ravelingien, Veerle Provoost, Guido Pennings

Published in: Journal of Bioethical Inquiry | Issue 3/2015

Login to get access

Abstract

Over the past years, a growing number of countries have legislated open-identity donation, in which donor-conceived offspring are given access to the donor’s identity once the child has reached maturity. It is held that donor anonymity creates identity problems for such children similar to the “genealogical bewilderment” described within the adoption context. The study of the social and psychological effects of open-identity donation is still very much in its infancy, but what has been left unquestioned is whether (and to what extent) offering access to the donor’s name and address is an adequate response to such effects. This study has two goals: First, we aim to provide a systematic review of the reasons why donor-conceived (DC) offspring want to know the identity of their sperm donor. Second, we examine to what extent the provision of donor-identifying information can satisfy the reasons mentioned. The most important motivations appear to be: (1) to avoid medical risks and consanguineous relationships; (2) to satisfy curiosity; (3) to learn more about the self or to complete one’s identity; (4) to learn more about what kind of person the donor is (biographical information, why he donated, etc.); (5) to form a relationship with the donor and/or his family; and (6) to learn about one’s ancestry/genealogy. Our analysis shows that for nearly all of these reasons access to the donor’s identity is not necessary. In those cases where it is, moreover, donor identification is not sufficient. What is really needed is (extended) contact with the donor, rather than the mere provision of his name.
Literature
go back to reference Blyth, E., M. Crawshaw, L. Frith, and C. Jones. 2012. Donor-conceived people’s views and experiences of their genetic origins: A critical analysis of the research evidence. Journal of Law and Medicine 19(4): 769–789.PubMed Blyth, E., M. Crawshaw, L. Frith, and C. Jones. 2012. Donor-conceived people’s views and experiences of their genetic origins: A critical analysis of the research evidence. Journal of Law and Medicine 19(4): 769–789.PubMed
go back to reference Cahn, N. 2011. No secrets: Openness and donor-conceived “half-siblings.” The Capital University Law Review 39: 313–343. Cahn, N. 2011. No secrets: Openness and donor-conceived “half-siblings.” The Capital University Law Review 39: 313–343.
go back to reference Chestney, E.S. 2001. The right to know one’s genetic origin: Can, should, or must a state that extends this right to adoptees extend an analogous right to children conceived with donor gametes? Texas Law Review 80(2): 364–891. Chestney, E.S. 2001. The right to know one’s genetic origin: Can, should, or must a state that extends this right to adoptees extend an analogous right to children conceived with donor gametes? Texas Law Review 80(2): 364–891.
go back to reference Craft, I., and A. Thornhill. 2005. Would “all-inclusive” compensation attract more gamete donors to balance their loss of anonymity? Reproductive BioMedicine Online 10(3): 301–306.CrossRefPubMed Craft, I., and A. Thornhill. 2005. Would “all-inclusive” compensation attract more gamete donors to balance their loss of anonymity? Reproductive BioMedicine Online 10(3): 301–306.CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference Fortin, J. 2009. Children’s right to know their origins—too far, too fast. Child & Family Law Quarterly 21(3): 336–355. Fortin, J. 2009. Children’s right to know their origins—too far, too fast. Child & Family Law Quarterly 21(3): 336–355.
go back to reference Jadva, V., T. Freeman, W. Kramer, and S. Golombok. 2009. The experiences of adolescent and adults conceived by sperm donation: Comparison by age of disclosure and family type. Human Reproduction 24(8): 1909–1919.CrossRefPubMed Jadva, V., T. Freeman, W. Kramer, and S. Golombok. 2009. The experiences of adolescent and adults conceived by sperm donation: Comparison by age of disclosure and family type. Human Reproduction 24(8): 1909–1919.CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference Jadva, V., T. Freeman, W. Kramer, and S. Golombok. 2010. Experiences of offspring searching for and contacting their donor siblings and donor. Reproductive BioMedicine Online 20(4): 523–532.CrossRefPubMed Jadva, V., T. Freeman, W. Kramer, and S. Golombok. 2010. Experiences of offspring searching for and contacting their donor siblings and donor. Reproductive BioMedicine Online 20(4): 523–532.CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference Janssens, P.M. 2003. No reason for a reduction in the number of offspring per sperm donor because of possible transmission of autosomal dominant diseases. Human Reproduction 18(4): 669–671.CrossRefPubMed Janssens, P.M. 2003. No reason for a reduction in the number of offspring per sperm donor because of possible transmission of autosomal dominant diseases. Human Reproduction 18(4): 669–671.CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference Mahlstedt, P.P., K. LaBounty, and W.T. Kennedy. 2010. The views of adult offspring of sperm donation: Essential feedback for the development of ethical guidelines within the practice of assisted reproductive technology in the United States. Fertility and Sterility 93(7): 2236–2246.CrossRefPubMed Mahlstedt, P.P., K. LaBounty, and W.T. Kennedy. 2010. The views of adult offspring of sperm donation: Essential feedback for the development of ethical guidelines within the practice of assisted reproductive technology in the United States. Fertility and Sterility 93(7): 2236–2246.CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference McMillan, J. 2014. Making sense of child welfare when regulating human reproductive technologies. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 11(1): 47–55.CrossRefPubMed McMillan, J. 2014. Making sense of child welfare when regulating human reproductive technologies. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 11(1): 47–55.CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference McWhinnie, A. 2001. Gamete donation and anonymity: Should offspring from donated gametes continue to be denied knowledge of their origins and antecedents? Human Reproduction 16(5): 807–817.CrossRefPubMed McWhinnie, A. 2001. Gamete donation and anonymity: Should offspring from donated gametes continue to be denied knowledge of their origins and antecedents? Human Reproduction 16(5): 807–817.CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference Ravelingien, A., V. Provoost, and G. Pennings. 2013. Donor-conceived children looking for their sperm donor: What do they want to know? Facts, Views and Vision in ObGyn 5(4): 254–261. Ravelingien, A., V. Provoost, and G. Pennings. 2013. Donor-conceived children looking for their sperm donor: What do they want to know? Facts, Views and Vision in ObGyn 5(4): 254–261.
go back to reference Ravitsky, V. 2010. “Knowing where you come from”: The rights of donor-conceived individuals and the meaning of genetic relatedness. Minnesota Journal of Law, Science and Technology 11(2): 655–684. Ravitsky, V. 2010. “Knowing where you come from”: The rights of donor-conceived individuals and the meaning of genetic relatedness. Minnesota Journal of Law, Science and Technology 11(2): 655–684.
go back to reference Rodino, I.S., P.J. Burton, and K.A. Sanders. 2011. Donor information considered important to donors, recipients and offspring: An Australian perspective. Reproductive BioMedicine Online 22(3): 303–311.CrossRefPubMed Rodino, I.S., P.J. Burton, and K.A. Sanders. 2011. Donor information considered important to donors, recipients and offspring: An Australian perspective. Reproductive BioMedicine Online 22(3): 303–311.CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference Sants, H.J. 1964. Genealogical bewilderment in children with substitute parents. The British Journal of Medical Psychology 37: 133–141.CrossRefPubMed Sants, H.J. 1964. Genealogical bewilderment in children with substitute parents. The British Journal of Medical Psychology 37: 133–141.CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference Scheib, J.E., M. Riordan, and S. Rubin. 2005. Adolescents with open-identity sperm donors: Reports from 12–17 year olds. Human Reproduction 20(1): 239–252.CrossRefPubMed Scheib, J.E., M. Riordan, and S. Rubin. 2005. Adolescents with open-identity sperm donors: Reports from 12–17 year olds. Human Reproduction 20(1): 239–252.CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference Turkmendag, I. 2012. The donor-conceived child’s “right to personal identity”: The public debate on donor anonymity in the United Kingdom. Journal of Law and Society 39(1): 58–75.CrossRefPubMed Turkmendag, I. 2012. The donor-conceived child’s “right to personal identity”: The public debate on donor anonymity in the United Kingdom. Journal of Law and Society 39(1): 58–75.CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference Turner, A.J., and A. Coyle. 2000. What does it mean to be a donor offspring? The identity experiences of adults conceived by donor insemination and the implications for counselling and therapy. Human Reproduction 15(9): 2041–2051.CrossRefPubMed Turner, A.J., and A. Coyle. 2000. What does it mean to be a donor offspring? The identity experiences of adults conceived by donor insemination and the implications for counselling and therapy. Human Reproduction 15(9): 2041–2051.CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference Vanfraussen, K., I. Ponjaert-Kristoffersen, and A. Brewaeys. 2001. An attempt to reconstruct children’s donor concept: A comparison between children’s and lesbian parents’ attitudes towards donor anonymity. Human Reproduction 16(9): 2019–2025.CrossRefPubMed Vanfraussen, K., I. Ponjaert-Kristoffersen, and A. Brewaeys. 2001. An attempt to reconstruct children’s donor concept: A comparison between children’s and lesbian parents’ attitudes towards donor anonymity. Human Reproduction 16(9): 2019–2025.CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference Vanfraussen, K., I. Ponjaert-Kristoffersen, and A. Brewaeys. 2003. Why do children want to know more about the donor? The experience of youngsters raised in lesbian families. Journal of Psychosomatic Obstetrics and Gynecology 24(1): 31–38.CrossRefPubMed Vanfraussen, K., I. Ponjaert-Kristoffersen, and A. Brewaeys. 2003. Why do children want to know more about the donor? The experience of youngsters raised in lesbian families. Journal of Psychosomatic Obstetrics and Gynecology 24(1): 31–38.CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference Velleman, J.D. 2005. Family history. Philosophical Papers 34(3): 357–378.CrossRef Velleman, J.D. 2005. Family history. Philosophical Papers 34(3): 357–378.CrossRef
go back to reference Velleman, J.D. 2008. Persons in prospect. Philosophy & Public Affairs 36(3): 221–287.CrossRef Velleman, J.D. 2008. Persons in prospect. Philosophy & Public Affairs 36(3): 221–287.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Open-Identity Sperm Donation: How Does Offering Donor-Identifying Information Relate to Donor-Conceived Offspring’s Wishes and Needs?
Authors
An Ravelingien
Veerle Provoost
Guido Pennings
Publication date
01-09-2015
Publisher
Springer Netherlands
Published in
Journal of Bioethical Inquiry / Issue 3/2015
Print ISSN: 1176-7529
Electronic ISSN: 1872-4353
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-014-9550-3

Other articles of this Issue 3/2015

Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 3/2015 Go to the issue

Film Review

Our Curse