Is It Possible To Recruit Gamete Donors Who Are Both Altruistic and Identifiable?

Abstract

To provide an analysis of responses from British gamete donors to a Department of Health survey on the possible implications of removing donor anonymity. A questionnaire designed by the Department of Health distributed to egg and sperm donors via licensed infertility treatment centres The questionnaire sought information from donors on: The centre at which they were/had been a donor The type of their donation Their response to the future removal of donor anonymity Their willingness to donate should donor anonymity be removed Their knowledge of other potential donors Their perception of the main issues or questions Their suggestions for recruiting identifiable donors 135 anonymously completed questionnaires were accessed by the researchers and analysed using SPSS. Two questionnaires were excluded from the analysis as it was unclear whether these respondents were donors. 16 centres were identified; five respondents did not specify a centre; 74% (99) identified just four centres and one centre was identified by 38% (50) 75 respondents (57%) were egg donors, 43 (32%) were sperm donors. 12 respondents (9%) identified themselves as egg share donors. There were no embryo donors. Three respondents did not make clear the type of donation in which they had engaged. Just over a third (47) of respondents asserted that they would become concerned about the future removal of donor anonymity. 48 (36%) were either not worried about, or positively welcomed, the removal of donor anonymity. The remaining quarter was unsure. 4 respondents did not respond to this question. Almost half of the respondents (20 sperm donors, 38 egg donors and 8 egg share donors) indicated they would still donate if anonymity were removed. This includes virtually all respondents who indicated that they were either not worried about, or positively welcomed, the removal of donor anonymity, and nearly half of those who were “unsure”. Very few who had expressed concern (3) would continue to donate. Only 15% (20) said they knew of a potential donor. While some concern was expressed about the physical and psychological health of donor-conceived children, most “main issues or questions” were concerned with possible implications for the donor of the removal of anonymity, including financial responsibility, emotional liability, moral obligations and fears of general personal involvement. Related issues focused on legal aspects, donors’ rights - including access to information about the recipients or any resulting child (or indeed any information about the outcome of their donation), the personal security of donors, and the potential impact on family members - in particular the donor’s spouse - if the resulting child ever wished to make contact with the donor. Suggestions made for recruiting identifiable donors included: education of others; providing a financial incentive (since currently UK donors are generally not compensated); ensuring that that the legal issues were considered and that donors had protection from legal responsibility, and use of the media/publicity. The survey indicates that approximately half of existing donors would continue to donate if anonymity were removed. In addition evidence is provided of the need for donors to have more information about the legal and social implications of gamete donation and greater opportunities for discussion.