Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Gamete donation, information sharing and the best interests of the child: an overview of the psychosocial evidence

  • On Gametes and Guidelines
  • Published:
Monash Bioethics Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper overviews key empirical findings from social science research regarding the impact of gamete donation on child wellbeing. In particular, the paper addresses current regulatory debates concerning information sharing and the best interests of the child by considering psychosocial aspects of telling—or not telling—children about their donor conception and the identity of their donor. The paper identifies three core sets of empirical, ethical and policy concerns underpinning these debates relating to (i) the psychosocial impact of gamete donation per se on child wellbeing, (ii) the psychosocial impact of parental disclosure decisions on child wellbeing, and (iii) the psychosocial implications of donor identification for donor-conceived offspring. The paper illustrates how these concerns are framed by ideas about the significance—or not—of ‘genetic relatedness’; ideas which have come to the fore in contemporary discussions about the potential consequences of donor-conceived individuals gaining access to their donor’s identity. By drawing together research findings that may be pertinent to the regulation of gamete donation and information sharing, a further aim of this paper is to explore the potential use and misuse of empirical ‘evidence’ in ethical and policy debates. Whilst this paper starts from the premise that psychosocial data has a vital role in grounding normative discussions, it seeks to contribute to this dialogue by highlighting both the value and limitations of social science research. In particular, the paper argues for a cautious approach to applying psychosocial evidence to ethical issues that is sensitive to the caveats and nuances of research findings and the changing cultural and regulatory context.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. I have restricted the primary focus of this article to the UK because regulatory and cultural perspectives on gamete donation vary widely across countries. However, the empirical and ethical issues raised are of broader relevance and furthermore, even within a given national setting, there may be a diversity of views.

  2. This paradigm develops the foundational work on parenting of Baumrind (1991).

  3. Further discussion of these measures can be found in Golombok (2000, 2015), as well as in the published reports of individual studies which contain detailed descriptions of the measures, including their reliability.

  4. It is noteworthy that the majority of this research has been conducted by one research team. As well as meaning there are relatively few studies in this area, there is also a need for studies to be replicated by other research teams.

  5. A smaller sample of egg donation families was also recruited from the UK and yielded similar findings concerning the lack of association between egg donation and difficulties in child adjustment (Murray et al. 2006).

  6. Parents in the UK sample were also seen at age 18 years and similar observations were made concerning positive aspects of parent–child relationships in sperm donation families (Owen and Golombok 2009).

  7. There are some studies that compare child psychological adjustment in non-disclosing and disclosing families in different family types. See for example Chan et al. (1998)’s study which includes lesbian couple and single mother families.

  8. For further discussion of the limitations of these studies, see Golombok (2015).

  9. By ‘donor relations’, I am referring to anyone who may be ‘genetically’ connected via donor conception. Typically interest has focused on the relationship between a donor-conceived individual and their donor, and between donor-conceived individuals in different families who share the same donor (commonly referred to as ‘donor siblings’). However, in recent years there has been increasing consideration of the wider network of ‘genetic’ and ‘social’ kin relationships that may be created through gamete donation.

  10. Note that this section refers to contact with previously unknown sperm donors who donated via a sperm bank or clinic, rather than the increasing number of donors who may be known to recipients from the outset, whether as friends, family members or through connection websites facilitating private arrangements between donors and recipients.

  11. The DSR was founded in 2000 by Wendy Kramer and her donor-conceived son to facilitate contact between donor offspring and their donors and donor siblings. It is the largest global network of this kind and currently has approximately 45,000 members, including donors, parents and donor-conceived people.

References

  • Appleby, J.B., L. Blake, and T. Freeman. 2012. Is disclosure in the best interests of children conceived by donation? In Reproductive donation: Practices, policies and bioethics, ed. M. Richards, G. Pennings, and J. Appleby, 231–249. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Baumrind, D. 1991. The influence of parenting style on adolescent competence and substance use. Journal of Early Adolescence 11(1): 56–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blake, L., P. Casey, J. Readings, V. Jadva, and S. Golombok. 2010. “Daddy ran out of tadpoles”: How parents tell their children that they are donor conceived, and what their 7-year-olds understand. Human Reproduction 25: 2527–2534.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blake, L., S. Zadeh, H. Statham, and T. Freeman. 2014. Families created by assisted reproduction: Children’s perspectives. In Relatedness in assisted reproduction: Families, origins and identities, ed. T. Freeman, et al. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blyth, Eric. 2012. Genes r us? Making sense of genetic and non-genetic relationships following anonymous donor insemination. Reproductive Biomedicine Online 24(7): 719–726.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bos, H., F. Van Balen, and D. Van den Boom. 2007. Child adjustment and parenting in planned lesbian-parent families. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 77: 38–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chan, R.W., B. Raboy, and C.K. Patterson. 1998. Psychological adjustment among children conceived via donor insemination by lesbian and heterosexual mothers. Child Development 69: 443–457.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, T. 2014a. Introduction. In Relatedness in assisted reproduction: Families, origins and identities, ed. T. Freeman, S. Graham, F. Ebtehaj, and M. Richards. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, T. 2014b. El proceso de revelar los origenes en familias creadas mediante donacion de semen: perspectivas de padres e hijos durante la adolescencia. In Bioética, Reproducción y Familia, ed. H.F. Zegers, and S. Salas. Santiago: The Universidad Diego Portales.

  • Freeman, T., and S. Golombok. 2012. Donor insemination families: A follow-up study of disclosure decisions, family relationships and child adjustment at adolescence. Reproductive BioMedicine Online 25: 193–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, T., and M. Richards. 2006. DNA testing and kinship: Paternity, genealogy and the search for the “truth” of our genetic origins. In Kinship matters, ed. F. Ebtehaj, B. Lindley, and M. Richards. Oxford: Hart.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, T., V. Jadva, W. Kramer, and S. Golombok. 2009. Gamete donation: Parents’ experiences of searching for their child’s donor siblings and donor. Human Reproduction 24: 505–516.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, T., J.B. Appleby, and V. Jadva. 2012. Identifiable donors and siblings: Implications for the future. In Reproductive donation: Practices, policies and bioethics, ed. M. Richards, G. Pennings, and J. Appleby, 250–269. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, T., S. Zadeh, V. Smith, and S. Golombok. 2013. Disclosure decisions of heterosexual mothers by donor insemination in single- and two-parent families: A comparison of anonymous and identity-release sperm donation. Presentation at ESHRE.

  • Freeman, T., S. Graham, F. Ebtehaj, and M. Richards (eds.). 2014a. Relatedness in assisted reproduction: Families, origins and identities. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, T., K. Bourne, V. Jadva, and V. Smith. 2014b. Making connections: Contact between sperm donor relations. In Relatedness in assisted reproduction: Families, origins and identities, ed. T. Freeman, S. Graham, F. Ebtehaj, and M. Richards. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, T., J. Jadva, and J. Slutsky. 2015. Sperm donors limited: Regulating offspring numbers in reproductive donation. In Regulating reproductive donation, ed. S. Golombok, et al. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (in press).

  • Gartrell, N., H. Bos, and A. Goldberg. 2012. New trends in same-sex sexual contact for American adolescents? Archives of Sexual Behavior 41: 5–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Golombok, S. 2000. Parenting: What really counts?. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Golombok, S. 2013. Families created by reproductive donation. Child Development Perspectives 7(1): 61–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Golombok, S. 2015. Modern families: Parenting and child development in new family forms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Golombok, S., R. Cook, A. Bish, and C. Murray. 1995. Families created by the new reproductive technologies: Quality of parenting and social and emotional development of the children. Child Development 64: 285–298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Golombok, S., A. Brewaeys, R. Cook, M.T. Giavazzi, D. Guerra, A. Mantovani, et al. 1996. The European Study of Assisted Reproduction Families: Family functioning and child development. Human Reproduction 11: 2324–2331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Golombok, S., C. Murray, P. Brinsden, and H. Abdalla. 1999. Social versus biological parenting: Family functioning and the socioemotional development of children conceived by egg or sperm donation. Journal of Child Psychology Psychiatry 40: 519–527.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Golombok, S., F. MacCallum, E. Goodman, and M. Rutter. 2002a. Families with children conceived by donor insemination: A follow-up at age 12. Child Development 73: 952–968.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Golombok, S., A. Brewaeys, M.T. Giavazzi, D. Guerra, F. MacCallum, and J. Rust. 2002b. The European Study of Assisted Reproduction Families: The transition to adolescence. Human Reproduction 17: 830–840.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Golombok, S., E. Lycett, F. MacCallum, V. Jadva, C. Murray, J. Rust, et al. 2004. Parenting infants conceived by gamete donation. Journal of Family Psychology 18: 443–452.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Golombok, S., V. Jadva, E. Lycett, C. Murray, and F. MacCallum. 2005. Families created by gamete donation: Follow-up at age 2. Human Reproduction 20: 286–293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Golombok, S., C. Murray, V. Jadva, E. Lycett, F. MacCallum, and J. Rust. 2006. Non-genetic and non-gestational parenthood: Consequences for parent-child relationships and the psychological well-being of mothers, fathers and children at age 3. Human Reproduction 21: 1918–1924.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Golombok, S., J. Readings, L. Blake, P. Casey, L. Mellish, A. Marks, et al. 2011a. Children conceived by gamete donation: Psychological adjustment and mother-child relationships at age 7. Journal of Family Psychology 25: 230–239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Golombok, S., J. Readings, L. Blake, P. Casey, L. Mellish, A. Marks, and V. Jadva. 2011b. Children conceived by gamete donation: The impact of openness about donor conception on psychological adjustment and parent-child relationships at age 7. Journal of Family Psychology 25(2): 230–239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Golombok, S., L. Blake, P. Casey, G. Roman, and V. Jadva. 2013. Children born through reproductive donation: A longitudinal study of child adjustment. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 54: 653–660.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Golombok, S., L. Mellish, S. Jennings, P. Casey, F. Tasker, and M. Lamb. 2014. Adoptive gay father families: Parent-child relationships and children’s psychological adjustment. Child Development 85(2): 456–468.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hertz, R., and J. Mattes. 2011. Donor-shared siblings or genetic strangers: New families, clans, and the internet. Journal of Family Issues 32(9): 1129–1155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hudson, N., and L. Culley. 2014. Infertility, gamete donation and relatedness in British South Asian communities. In Relatedness in assisted reproduction: Families, origins and identities, ed. T. Freeman, S. Graham, F. Ebtehaj, and M. Richards. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Ilioi, E.C., and S. Golombok. 2014. Psychological adjustment in adolescents conceived by assisted reproduction techniques: A systematic review. Human Reproduction Update. doi:10.1093/humupd/dmu051.

  • Jadva, V., T. Freeman, W. Kramer, and S. Golombok. 2009. The experiences of adolescents and adults conceived by sperm donation: Comparisons by age of disclosure and family type. Human Reproduction 24: 1909–1919.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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: 523–532.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Janssens, P., A. Nap, and L. Bancsi. 2011. Reconsidering the number of offspring per gamete donor in the Dutch open-identity system. Human Fertility 14: 104–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lycett, E., K. Daniels, R. Curson, and S. Golombok. 2004. Offspring created as a result of donor insemination: A study of family relationships, child adjustment, and disclosure. Fertility and Sterility 82: 172–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lycett, E., K. Daniels, R. Curson, and S. Golombok. 2005. School-aged children of donor insemination: A study of parents’ disclosure patterns. Human Reproduction 20: 810–819.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacCallum, F., S. Golombok, and P. Brinsden. 2007. Parenting and child development in families with a child conceived by embryo donation. Journal of Family Psychology 21: 278–287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maccoby, E.E., and J.A. Martin. 1983. Socialization in the context of the family: Parent–child interaction. In Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 4. Socialization, personality, and social development, 4th ed, ed. P.H. Mussen, and E.M. Hetherington. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murray, C., and S. Golombok. 2005. Solo mothers and their donor insemination infants. Human Reproduction 20: 1655–1660.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murray, C., F. MacCallum, and S. Golombok. 2006. Families created by egg donation: Follow-up at age 12. Fertility and Sterility 85: 610–618.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nachtigall, R.D., S. Szkupinski Quiroga, J.M. Tschann, L. Pitcher, and G. Becker. 1997. Stigma, disclosure and family functioning among parents of children conceived through donor insemination. Fertility and Sterility 68: 83–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nachtigall, R.D., L. Pitcher, J.M. Tschann, G. Becker, and S. Szkupinski Quiroga. 1998. The disclosure decision: Concerns and issues of parents and children conceived through donor insemination. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 178: 1165–1170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nuffield Council on Bioethics. 2013. Donor conception: Ethical aspects of information sharing. London: Nuffield Council on Bioethics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Owen, L., and S. Golombok. 2009. Families created by assisted reproduction: Parent-child relationships in late adolescence. Journal of Adolescence 32: 835–848.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Readings, J., L. Blake, P. Casey, V. Jadva, and S. Golombok. 2011. Secrecy, openness and everything in between: Decisions of parents of children conceived by donor insemination, egg donation and surrogacy. Reproductive Biomedicine Online 22: 485–495.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richards, M. 2014. A British history of collaborative reproduction and the rise of the genetic connection. In Relatedness in assisted reproduction: Families, origins and identities, ed. T. Freeman, S. Graham, F. Ebtehaj, and M. Richards. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rothman, B.K. 1989. Women as fathers: Motherhood and child care under a modified patriarchy. Gender and Society 3: 89–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sawyer, N. 2010. Sperm donor limits that control for the ‘relative’ risk associated with the use of open-identity donors. Human Reproduction 5: 1089–1096.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scheib, J.E., and A. Ruby. 2008. Contact among families who share the same sperm donor. Fertility and Sterility 90: 33–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scheib, J., M. Riordan, and S. Rubin. 2005. Adolescents with open-identity sperm donors: Reports from 12–17 year olds. Human Reproduction 20: 239–252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shelton, K.H., J. Boivin, D. Hay, M.B.M. van den Bree, F.J. Rice, G.T. Harold, et al. 2009. Examining differences in psychological adjustment problems among children conceived by assisted reproductive technologies. International Journal of Behavioral Development 33: 385–392.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Skinner-Drawz, B.A., G.M. Wrobel, H.D. Grotevant, and Von L Korff. 2011. The role of adoption communicative openness in information seeking among adoptees from adolescence to emerging adulthood. Journal of Family Communication 11: 181–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turner, A.J., and A. Cole. 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: 2041–2051.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wrobel, G.M., H.D. Grotevant, D.R. Samek, and L. Von Korff. 2013. Adoptees’ curiosity and information-seeking about birth parents in emerging adulthood: Context, motivation and behaviour. International Journal of Behavioural Development 37: 441–450.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The empirical research presented in this paper is largely based on studies conducted at the Centre for Family Research, University of Cambridge, UK, and funded by grants awarded to Susan Golombok by the Wellcome Trust and the Nuffield Foundation. I would like to thank Susan Golombok and Vasanti Jadva for our frequent discussions of the issues covered in this paper and for their comments on the draft. I would also like to thank the two anonymous reviewers for their feedback. As ever, we are extremely grateful to all the families who have taken part in these studies.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for Family Research, Free School Lane, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, CB2 3RF, UK

    Tabitha Freeman

Authors
  1. Tabitha Freeman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tabitha Freeman.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Freeman, T. Gamete donation, information sharing and the best interests of the child: an overview of the psychosocial evidence. Monash Bioeth. Rev. 33, 45–63 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40592-015-0018-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40592-015-0018-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation