Anonymous Gamete Donation Research Articles

Anonymous Gamete Donation: a Case for Balancing Under Article 8 ECHR.

Anonymous gamete donation creates a specific conflict between human rights and public interests under Article 8 of the ECHR. This was first assessed in the ECtHR's landmark decision in Gauvin-Fournis and Silliau v. France of 7 September 2023. This article critically analyses this judgment, taking into account the European legal framework for anonymous gamete donation, the recommendations of the competent authorities and the previous case law of the ECtHR on the right to know one's biological origin as an integral part of one's identity that is protected under the right to private and family life.

Australian intended parents’ decision-making and characteristics and outcomes of surrogacy arrangements completed in Australia and overseas

Markets for international surrogacy often arise in jurisdictions with limited regulations regarding assisted reproductive technologies. In some countries, like Australia, regulated domestic surrogacy services are often sidestepped for international providers. This study describes how Australian intended parents decide where to pursue surrogacy and compares the characteristics and outcomes of arrangements completed within and outside of Australia. The findings show that, although intended parents preferred undergoing surrogacy in Australia, perceiving the process as too long and complicated was a common reason to pursue an international arrangement. Multiple embryo transfer, anonymous gamete donation, and a lack of counselling were common in international surrogacy arrangements. When compared to surrogacy arrangements completed in Australia, where single embryo transfer is mandatory for surrogacy cycles, the rates of multiple birth, preterm birth and neonatal intensive care in international surrogacy were higher. These findings raise concerns about the health and welfare of international surrogacy participants, particularly the surrogates and children. In lieu of any international instrument regulating surrogacy, improving access to surrogacy at a domestic level would reduce the number of people engaging with international arrangements and in turn, reduce the potential for harm.

P-386 The impact of cross-border surrogacy practices on the welfare of children

Abstract Study question What are the clinical characteristics and medical outcomes of cross-border surrogacy (CBS) arrangements? Summary answer CBS practices commonly involve anonymously donated oocytes and multiple embryo transfers which can adversely impact the psychological and physical welfare of the children born. What is known already Intended parents may seek CBS when surrogacy in their home country is prohibited or when access is restricted to heterosexual couples, or when they cannot find a surrogate in their home country. Standards of clinical care can differ between the parents' home country and the CBS destination. Surrogacy is generally unregulated in CBS destinations, making it difficult to monitor clinical practices and the outcomes for the children born. In Australia, where this study is set, anonymous gamete donation and multiple embryo transfers for patients engaged in surrogacy is prohibited. The rate of twin surrogacy deliveries is 2.2%. Study design, size, duration This cross-sectional study collected data through an online, anonymous survey open between April and November 2021. Participants/materials, setting, methods A survey with predominantly fixed-choice questions was developed and informed by the authors’ prior research, the literature, and one author’s experience of surrogacy and surrogacy advocacy. Questions were refined through an iterative process involving consultation with parents through surrogacy. Australian parents through surrogacy were eligible to participate and the study was advertised to personal contacts, members of a surrogacy non-profit organisation and members of a surrogacy related Facebook group. Data were analysed descriptively. Main results and the role of chance One hundred and eight Australian parents through CBS completed the survey. Surrogacy was undertaken in twelve destinations, with approximately half of respondents completing surrogacy in the United States of America (34%, n = 37) or Canada (17%, n = 18). Almost all respondents reported the pregnancy was a result of an embryo transfer (92%, n = 98) and not artificial insemination (8%, n = 10). Of those reporting embryo transfer, 41% reported the transfer of multiple embryos (n = 40) and 79% reported the use of donor oocytes (n = 77). Of the respondents that used donor oocytes, almost half were from an anonymous donor (47%, n = 36) and all but one noted their intent to disclose the use of donor oocytes to their child (97%, n = 76). Pregnancy or birth complications were reported by 29% of respondents (n = 31). There were 12 twin births (11%), 22 preterm births (20%) and 24 births requiring neonatal intensive care (22%). The median time spent in the neonatal intensive care unit was 6 days (range 1-60). All but one twin birth arose from pregnancies resulting from a multiple embryo transfer and the majority were preterm (75%, n = 9) and required neonatal intensive care (59%, n = 7). Limitations, reasons for caution It is not known if those who completed the survey are representative of all parents through CBS. However, the respondents’ sociodemographic characteristics and motivations for surrogacy were similar to those in previously conducted studies, both within Australia and internationally. Wider implications of the findings The welfare of children born through surrogacy can be protected by addressing the barriers to undertaking surrogacy domestically and thereby reducing the number of people crossing borders, and by promoting identity release or known donation and single embryo transfer as best practice in surrogacy internationally. Trial registration number Not applicable

Zero or 18

Zero or 18

The End of Anonymous Sperm Donation in Colorado

This Viewpoint discusses the new Colorado law prohibiting anonymous gamete donation and other debates over reproductive technologies and secrecy.

Gamete donation: anti-anonymity does not equate to anti-donation.

What is the relationship between the position that anonymous gamete donation is wrong (i.e. the anti-anonymity position) and the position that all gamete donation is wrong (i.e. the anti-donation position)? Some argue that people who accept the anti-anonymity position should also accept the anti-donation position on the grounds that the two positions share the same main arguments. But that’s not true. One argument in favor of anti-anonymity does not generate genuine dialectical pressure to accept the anti-donation position. The other anti-anonymity arguments do generate dialectical pressure, but not in a way that pushes toward the anti-donation position. Instead, they push toward what we might call the ‘pro-known-donation’ position. So, either there is no dialectical pressure or, where there is, it doesn’t flow toward the anti-donation position.

Does donor conception violate human dignity?

The moral acceptability of anonymous gamete donation remains contested. Although the view that the value of parent-child relationships should not depend on genetic ties is "nearly axiomatic" among philosophers and bioethicists, one well-known dissenter remains: David Velleman. I argue that most rebuttals to Velleman have simply talked past him because they have failed to understand his fundamental point-that donor conception is a violation of human dignity and as such is wrong even if it does not harm individuals. I challenge Velleman on his own terms by endorsing his metaphysical picture before showing that donor conception is not necessarily a violation of human dignity. I show this by arguing that gamete donation is held to a double standard of self-knowledge. I develop an account of the self that recognizes that certain kinds ofchallenges to one's flourishing can contribute to an individual's strength and self-knowledge. I defend my view against objections that genetic knowledge is categorically different from other ways of knowing oneself and I show that donor conception can respect human dignity as long as it meets certain conditions.

Gamete Donor Anonymity: What's Privacy Got to Do with It?

In Canada, gamete donor anonymity is tacitly protected in the absence of laws or regulations that explicitly address the topic. This article explores and characterizes the historical and contemporary role of privacy, as a publicly protected legal interest, in the context of gamete donation. Ultimately, this article argues that anonymous gamete donation is not supported by the principle of privacy in Canadian law. The argument proceeds by identifying and exploring three candidate rationales for gamete donors’ interests in privacy as referenced in past and current government reports, legislation, and case law, but ultimately reveals them as wanting and unfounded from a legal standpoint. The implication of this is that the protection of donor anonymity cannot find support in appeals to donors’ privacy interests, and that the legal defensibility of the practice — if it can be defended at all — must be found elsewhere.

Anonymous Gamete Donation in Iran: Lineage Revisited

AbstractAssisted reproductive technologies (ARTs) were legitimized in Iran through the rulings (fatwa) of some of the Shia Islamic jurists, who, in allowing third‐party gamete donation, specified that the resulting child will belong to its biological parent from whom it will take its lineage and inherit. However, three decades on and in practice, the recipients of gamete are increasingly resorting to seeking third‐party gamete from anonymous donors, an act which defies the above rulings. Currently, a proposal including legalizing anonymous gamete donation is examined by the parliament and the question of anonymity remains in flux. This article examines the factors leading to the emergence of the preference by both the infertile couples and the practitioners for anonymous donation. It further examines the implications of anonymous gamete donation for lineage and biological relatedness, which form the cornerstone of family and kinship, and which are paramount in Islam and in Iranian culture.

Parent-initiated posthumous-assisted reproduction revisited in light of the interest in genetic origins

A rich literature in bioethics argues against the use of anonymous gamete donation in the name of the ‘interest in knowing one’s genetic origins’. This interest stems from medical as...

Anonymous gamete donation and Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights: The case for incompatibility

It has long been suggested that anonymous gamete donation may breach the rights of donor-conceived persons under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHRs). However, this has never been definitively addressed by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHRs). The purpose of this article is to comprehensively set out the argument that anonymous gamete donation constitutes an unjustifiable interference with Article 8 ECHR. The article analyses the rich jurisprudence of the ECtHR on the right to identity in the fields of paternity and anonymous birth, and argues that the right has a ‘tracing’ element and a ‘recognition’ element, both of which are engaged in the anonymous donation context. It is argued that despite the absence of consensus across the Member States, proper analysis of the application of Article 8 should conclude that regimes that permit anonymous donation fail to strike a fair balance between competing rights and interests.

A Systematic Review of Qualitative Studies Investigating Motives and Experiences of Recipients of Anonymous Gamete Donation.

The decision to use an anonymous gamete donation in fertility treatment could have significant long-term psychological and social effects for all stakeholders involved. In light of the growing recognition of donor-conceived children’s right to know their genetic parentage, this entails profound ethical implications. This review aims to carve out the full spectrum of recipients’ motives and experiences related to donor anonymity which could serve as an analytical framework for future ethical and sociological research on issues of donor anonymity. This review was conducted following a seven-step approach for systematic reviews of empirical bioethics literature. The characteristics and quality of the studies included in this review were reported. Data analysis was conducted using qualitative content analysis and was informed by sociological functionalist theorizations of ignorance. The 53 studies selected showed a diverse spectrum of characteristics concerning date and country of study, methodology, family type of participants, sample size, and the timing of data collection in relation to the stage of treatment. A total of 22 categories of motives and experiences of recipients concerning donor anonymity were identified inductively and grouped into five main categories. Donor anonymity was identified as a eufunctional form of ignorance, by which the recipients experienced or intended to control, regulate, or protect inter-stakeholder relations. Interpreting recipients’ motives and experiences concerning donor anonymity as a form of ignorance directed toward particular stakeholders helps reframe the discourse on donor anonymity. It is a fruitful approach that can be refined further and applied in future research. This review identified possible directions for future investigations on motives for donor anonymity: the need for more thorough inquiries into the change in recipients’ preferences over time, such as in the form of longitudinal studies and research on the perspective of non-biological parents.

P–477 The child’s right to know vs. the parents’ right not to tell: the attitudes of couples undergoing fertility treatments towards identity-release gamete donation

Abstract Study question Do couples undergoing assisted reproduction treatments (ART) have a different perception of anonymous vs identity-release gamete donation than a population interested in the subject? Summary answer Compared with a population interested in the subject, more couples undergoing ART believed the child shouldn’t be given information that would identify the gamete-donor. What is known already Recent research has investigated the psychological well-being of parents and children born through gamete donation, focusing on the possibility of having the donor’s identity revealed. Gamete donors have traditionally been anonymous to recipients and offspring; however, there is a global trend towards programs using donors that are identifiable to the resulting offspring at maturity. While some countries only allow the use of identity-release egg donation, others only allow anonymous-donation, and in some countries both types of donation are practiced. However, the attitudes concerning anonymous vs identity-release gamete donation, in a country where only anonymous donation is allowed, are still unknown. Study design, size, duration This cross-sectional study was performed from 01/Sep/2020 to 15/Dec/2020. For that, surveys through online-platforms were conducted, including either patients undergoing ART, (ART-group, n = 358) or those interested in the subject, who accessed the website of a university-affiliated IVF-center (interested-group, n = 122). Participants in the ART-group were invited via e-mail, with a cover-letter outlining the survey and a link to access it and participants in the interested-group accessed the questionnaire via website. Participants/materials, setting, methods The survey collected information on demographic characteristics and the participant’s attitudes towards anonymity of gamete donors. The questions were: (i) In the case of children conceived through ART, do you believe that revealing the method of conception may affect the relationship between children and their parents? (ii) Once the method of conception is revealed, do you believe that the child has the right to know the gamete donor? (iii) If yes, when? Main results and the role of chance Most of the participants answered that the relationship between children and parents wouldn’t be affected by the child’s knowledge of the origin of their conception, regardless of the group (83.6% vs 82.7%, for ART-group and interested-group, respectively, p = 0.868). Most participants in the ART-group answered that the sperm donor identity shouldn’t be revealed to the child, while only half of the interested-group stated the same (65.4% vs 50.8%, p = 0.044). The same result was observed when participants were asked if the oocyte donor should be identifiable (64.8% vs 50.8%, p = 0.050). When asked when the donor’s identity should be revealed to the child, no significant differences were noted in the responses among the groups (p = 0.868). Most of the participants who believe that the child has the right of learning the donor’s identity, stated that “the donor’s identity should be revealed if the child questions its biological origin” (67.2% vs 67.5%, for ART-group and interested-group, respectively). “Since birth” was the second most common response, (21.0% vs 19.7%, for ART-group and interested-group, respectively), while “when the child turns 18 years-old” (9.2% vs 11.2%, for ART-group and interested-group, respectively), and “sometime during teenage years” (2.5% vs 2.4%, for ART-group and interested-group, respectively) were less common answers. Limitations, reasons for caution Lack of adequate opportunities to conduct face to face interview and lack of knowledge of the real state of the website participants, concerning infertility or being involved in ART. The retrospective nature of the study and the small sample size may also be reasons for caution, Wider implications of the findings: It has been discussed that, whether or not children or parents are harmed by knowing their biological origins, donor offspring have the right to know. However, when facing the situation, couples undergoing ART would argue that in case of gamete donation, there are reasons for not telling the child. Trial registration number Not applicable

"Monstrous Othering": The Gothic Nature of Origin-Tracing in Law and Literature

Much Gothic literature touches upon the concepts of familial injustice, disconnect from origin, and ill-treatment of the "monstrously-othered" or abandoned child. Certain works of fiction mirror those judicial discourses that involve contentious issues of unknown ancestry, not least anonymous gamete donation and cross-border surrogacy. Three novels in particular see their characters rendered monstrous by law, society, or unwritten norms of behavior: the clones of Katzuo Ishiguro's Never Let Me Go, the unnamed monster in Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, and Emily Brontë's Heathcliff in Wuthering Heights, share common features and horrific fates of endless exile. They are abused largely because of their genetic losses and unknowable origins, and thereby doomed to undertake fruitless quests and suffer flawed or fatal reunions. Dehumanizing policies of disenfranchisement enable or perpetuate such inequalities, but are justified in law, to preserve social order. In courtrooms too, there is a judicial need to balance conflicting human rights and interests: privacy, identity, family life. A "monstrous othering" can thus result, permanently exiling certain individuals from fundamental human rights protections. This is so despite the principles of child welfare paramountcy and best interests, not least where cross-border surrogacy, contact vetoes and sealed birth records are involved.

The Myth of 'Anonymous' Gamete Donation in the Age of Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing

The United States has long had a history of allowing anonymous gamete donation. Even as other countries have embraced a trend towards donor-conceived children receiving open access to information about their genetic origins, donor anonymity is the norm in the United States. The vast majority of sperm donors in the United States sell their sperm with the understanding that their identity will not be revealed. In one study, almost one third of current donors indicated that they would no longer sell their sperm if anonymity was not preserved.However, this so-called anonymity is merely a facade given the increasingly widespread use of direct-to-consumer (“DTC”) genetic testing. This chapter describes why gamete donor anonymity is a myth and how claiming such anonymity is harmful to both donors and those who use donor gametes. This chapter proceeds as follows: Part II of this chapter discusses how consumer genetic testing has overturned the promise of gamete donor anonymity. Part III describes the history and state of sperm donation in the United States, as well as the reasons often given for preserving donor anonymity by donors, those who use donor sperm, and sperm banks. This Part also discusses the business of so-called donation. Part IV provides the legal and governance landscape for sperm banks and sperm donations in the United States. Part V suggests that at a minimum, sperm banks and the assisted reproduction industry should address the anonymity issue with vigorous self-policing.

MAR: current and future practices with the review of the law on bioethics

Medically assisted reproduction techniques are aimed at heterosexual couples, when both members are living, of reproductive age, consenting to acts of insemination or the transfer of embryos and presenting medically diagnosed infertility. The review of the law on bioethics could offer new perspectives for reproduction notably by allowing access to medically assisted reproduction (MAR) to all women, elective egg freezing, the lifting of gamete donor anonymity and the authorisation of post-mortem MAR.

Anonymous sperm donors' attitude towards donation and the release of identifying information.

Belgian legislation allows only strictly anonymous gamete donation and known donation (donation to a recipient known by the donor). Recently, an amendment of the legislation was proposed to grant donor offspring, as of 18years old, the right to claim identifying information about their donor. The aim is to explore the attitude of actual sperm donors towards donation and the release of identifying information and to investigate which donors would be willing to donate when anonymity would be prohibited by law. All men who were accepted as sperm donors (n = 242) by AZ Jan Palfijn Hospital (Ghent, Belgium) were invited to complete an anonymous online survey. The response rate was 65.5%. One in five (20.1%; n = 30) would continue sperm donation upon a legislation change towards identifiable donation. Three in four donors (75.2%) would agree to provide basic non-identifiable information about themselves and one in three (32.9%) would provide extra non-identifiable information such as a baby photo or a personal letter. Almost half of the donors (45.6%) would agree to donate in a system where the hospital can trace the donor at the child's request and contact the donor, leaving it to the donor to decide whether or not to have contact with the requesting donor child. These findings show that only one in five current donors would continue to donate when identifiable. The study also demonstrates that current donors think more positive about alternative options and that nearly half of them are willing to be contacted by the hospital at the donor child's request, providing the donor can decide at that time whether or not to release his identity.

Informing offspring of their conception by gamete or embryo donation: an Ethics Committee opinion

This document discusses the ethical implications of informing offspring about their conception using gamete or embryo donation. It replaces the 2013 ASRM Ethics Committee document of the same name (Fertil Steril 2013;100:45-9).

配偶子ドナーの匿名性のもとに生まれた子の出自を知る権利の遡及的保障をめぐる課題 オーストラリア・ビクトリア州の事例を中心に

配偶子ドナーの匿名性のもとに生まれた子の出自を知る権利の遡及的保障をめぐる課題 オーストラリア・ビクトリア州の事例を中心に

A DONOR-CONCEIVED CHILD’S RIGHT TO KNOW ITS GENETIC ORIGIN: A SOUTH AFRICAN PERSPECTIVE

This paper addresses the need for donor-conceived children to know their genetic parents. The author focuses on the legal consequences of not knowing a genetic parent, as a basis to advocate for the recognition and protection of a donor-conceived child’s right to know its genetic parent. Further an analogy is drawn between donor-conceived and adopted children to advance the argument. The conclusion is that there is a need for legal reform, with regard to anonymous gamete donation in South African law.