This exploratory qualitative study investigates the experiences of eight adults conceived following anonymous sperm donation who had discovered the identity both of their donor and of donor half-siblings and had established contact with each other. It focuses primarily on participants’ reflections on genetic and social kinship relationships. Data were collected from this group as well as from the son of the donor and the donor-conceived half-sister of one participant by means of semistructured interviews utilizing asynchronous email and digitalized voice recording. Participants discussed their experience of genetic disconnection resulting from learning of their donor-conceived status and of revising their personal biographies and developing new kinship networks as a result of discovering the identity of their donor and the existence of donor half-siblings. The study highlights participants’ agency expressed through their ability to draw on both genetic and non-genetic elements of their inheritance to redefine their self-identity and extend their familial/kinship networks in meaningful ways.
This paper reports findings from a study investigating the experiences of eight adults who learned of their conception following anonymous donor insemination provided by the same fertility clinic, the identity of their shared donor and their relatedness to each other and who had subsequently established communications with each other. The donor-conceived sister of one participant and the son of the donor also participated. Data were collected by means of email communications using a semi-structured interview schedule. The specific focus of this paper examines participants’ experiences of genetic disconnection resulting from learning of their donor-conceived status and of revising their personal biographies and developing new kinship networks as a result of discovering the identity of their donor and the existence of donor half-siblings. It concludes that participants were able to draw on both genetic and non-genetic elements of their ‘roots’ in order to redefine their self-identity and extend their familial/kinship networks.
Introduction
In recent years, the twin assumptions that have historically underpinned donor conception – anonymity and secrecy – have increasingly been challenged, not least by the views and experiences of donor-conceived people who have been informed about, or have otherwise discovered, the nature of their conception. Often, donor-conceived people who have become aware of the circumstances of their conception have indicated a wish to learn the identity of their donor and of any donor half-siblings (see, for example, Baran and Pannor, 1989, Cordray, 1999/2000, Engel, 2001, Hewitt, 2002, Jadva et al., 2010, Kirkman, 2004, Lorbach, 2003, Mahlstedt et al., 2010, McWhinnie, 2006, Paul and Berger, 2007, Scheib et al., 2005, Spencer, 2007, Stevens, 2001, Stevens, 2006, Turner and Coyle, 2000, Vanfraussen et al., 2001, Vanfraussen et al., 2003).
Hitherto, knowledge and understanding of donor-conceived people’s motivations for, and experiences of, searching for genetic kin have relied almost exclusively on individual (Becky, 2007, Gollancz, 2007, Jamieson, 2006, Shirley, 2007, Shirley’s Story, nd, Stevens, 2001, Stevens, 2004) and media accounts (see, for example, Gloger and Sanderson, 2006, Goldenberg, 2006, Harmon, 2005, Mar, 2006, Mroz, 2011, Pfister, 2006, Romano, 2006, Skelton, 2006, Wilkes, 2006). An earlier academic study of donor-conceived individuals’ search for their donor and/or donor half-siblings (Jadva et al., 2010) explores both participants’ motivations for searching and the outcomes of successful searches, emphasizing that, from donor-conceived individuals’ perspectives, ‘genes matter’. However, this study did not permit exploration in any depth of the implications of the search either for the searchers or for those sought out.
At the same time, it can be argued both that ‘no cultural paradigm [exists] for understanding the relationship between donor siblings’ (Hertz, 2009, 159) and that interactions between donor-conceived people and their donors and genetic half-siblings are ‘unchartered territory’ (Kramer, cited in Skelton, 2006). Yet, adequate understanding of the implications of the search for, and the relationships between, genetic kin that are thereby developed is necessary. Statutory registers that facilitate access by donor-conceived persons to genetic kin are now operational (Blyth, 2012, Blyth and Frith, 2009), and informal and voluntary registries, such as the Donor Sibling Registry (Jadva et al., 2010) and the UK’s DonorLink (Crawshaw and Marshall, 2008), are already enabling links to be made between donor-conceived people and their genetic relatives, who may comprise large multisibling groups (Blyth, in press).
Section snippets
Methods and materials
The exploratory study reported here provides an in-depth examination of the experiences of eight adults conceived by donor insemination (DI) who learned: (i) the nature of their conception following anonymous sperm donation provided by the same UK fertility clinic; (ii) the identity of their shared donor; and (iii) their relatedness to each other and analyses their efforts to understand and construct meanings of genetic and non-genetic kinship connectedness and relationships.
At the commencement
Results
Participants described themselves collectively as ‘Clan X’ after the family name of their donor who provided spermatozoa for a DI clinic run by his wife, Dr X. At the outset of their search for their donor, Dr X’s clinic had ceased to operate and their donor had died several years before they discovered his identity. An extended account of the process through which participants located each other is provided in Blyth (in press). Summary details will therefore be provided here.
The Clan X
Discussion
This study is the first to provide an in-depth exploration of the perceptions and experiences of donor-conceived individuals who have learned about the nature of their conception, discovered the identity of their donor and made contact with donor half-siblings and with a child of their donor. However, it has a number of limitations that need to be acknowledged before considering any implications that may be drawn from it. First, it was based on the experiences of a small self-selected group
Acknowledgements
This study was funded by the Economic and Social Research Council (Grant No. RES-000-22-3408). The author wishes to thank all study participants for giving up their time and for their willingness to share their experiences, without which this study would not have been possible and, additionally, Dr. Jennifer Speirs and participants who commented on a draft of this manuscript.
Association of Internet Researchers, 2002. Ethical decision-making and Internet research: recommendations from the AOIR...
A. Baran et al.
Lethal Secrets: The Psychology of Donor Insemination: Problems and Solutions
(1989)
Becky, 2007. Untitled. DC Network News 29,...
E. Blyth
Davina and Goliath: the personal cost of seeking justice
Bionews
(2010)
E. Blyth
Access to genetic and birth origins information for people conceived following third party assisted conception in the United Kingdom
Int. J. Children’s Rights
(2012)
Blyth, E., in press. Discovering the ‘facts of life’ following anonymous donor insemination. Int. J. Law Policy...
E. Blyth et al.
Donor-conceived people’s access to genetic and biographical history: an analysis of provisions in different jurisdictions permitting disclosure of donor identity
Int. J. Law Policy Fam.
(2009)
C. Brewin et al.
Psychopathology and early experience: a reappraisal of retrospective reports
Psychol. Bull.
(1993)
British Psychological Society, 2007. Report of the Working Party for Conducting Research on the Internet: Guidelines...
British Psychological Society
Code of Ethics and Conduct
(2009)
B. Cordray
A survey of people conceived through donor insemination
DI Network News
(1999/2000)
M. Crawshaw et al.
Practice experiences of running UK DonorLink, a voluntary information exchange and contact register for adults related through donor conception
Hum. Fertil.
(2008)
E. Engel
Tracing half siblings from the same donor: the issues for counsellors
J. Fertil. Couns.
(2001)
K. Gilhooly et al.
Protocol analysis: theoretical background
Gloger, D., Sanderson, E., 2006. Day the daughters of Donor X finally met. Mail on Sunday, 21 May. Available from:...
Goldenberg, S., 2006. Who’s the daddy? The Guardian, 3 January. Available from:...
Gollancz, D., 2007. Time to stop lying The Guardian, 2 August. Available from:...
V. Grace et al.
The (ir)relevance of genetics: engendering parallel worlds of procreation and reproduction
Sociol. Health Illn.
(2007)
Harmon, A., 2005. Hello, I’m your sister. Our father is Donor 150. New York Times, 20 November, 1. Available from:...
R. Hertz
Turning strangers into kin: half siblings and anonymous donors
G. Hewitt
Missing links: identity issues of donor-conceived people
Knowing their donor’s identity is reported to be associated with several benefits for donor conceived offspring, such as the possibility of gaining information relevant to their health as well as developing a fuller sense of their own identity and to situate themselves both historically and biologically (Blyth, 2012; Hertz et al., 2013; Hanseen, 2015; Jadva et al., 2010; Kirkman, 2003; Slutsky et al., 2016). Moreover, several authors (Blyth, 2012; Jadva et al., 2010; Ravelingien et al., 2013; Scheib et al., 2017; Tasker and Granville, 2011) reported significant extensions in the offspring’s familial/kinship networks following contacts with the donor. Many of the individuals who obtained access to their donor’s identity also reported having regular and mutually enjoyable contact with them (Blyth, 2012; van den Akker et al., 2015); this was especially true for donor conceived people raised in single-mother or lesbian families (Jadva et al., 2010).
The aim of this study was to provide a systematic narrative review of the published research articles on donor conceived offspring’s subjective experiences of their donor. A systematic search of electronic databases (PsycINFO and PubMed) provided 29 published quantitative and qualitative studies matching the inclusion criteria. The analysis of the studies outcomes led to the identification of four main themes: (i) views/representations of the donor; (ii) desire to contact the donor (in terms of desire to meet the donor, reasons for wanting to contact the donor, type and frequency of contact); (iii) reactions to discovering the donor’s identity and contacting the donor; (iv) identity issues. The findings revealed that genetic ties do matter to donor conceived people, especially during adolescence or adulthood. Many donor conceived people were interested in contacting the donor and all of them needed to make meaning of the role of the donor, as well as to integrate it into their family life and self-concept. Besides curiosity and medical reasons, many people reported wanting to contact the donor to see what he/she looked like, and to have access to their own ancestry and genetic history.
In addition, 78% of 1562 respondents indicated that donors should be restricted in donating at more than one semen bank, heterosexual-couples and single women being more in favour of this than respondents from lesbian relationships (Sawyer et al., 2013). Systematic studies on the opinion of offspring on donor quota could not be found, although in some articles it has been reported that offspring (Allan, 2012; Blyth, 2012a, 2012b; Cushing, 2010; Kirkman, 2003, 2004; Rodino et al., 2010), and on occasion donors (Crawshaw et al., 2007) mention general concerns about accidental consanguineous relationships. Many professionals in the field, however, find the extent to which such expressions of concern from self-selecting respondents (who may be those with the strongest desires and convictions) should influence the debate is difficult to determine.
An international working group was established with the aim of making recommendations on the number of offspring for a sperm donor that should be allowable in cases of international use of his sperm. Considerations from genetic, psychosocial, operational and ethical points of view were debated. For these considerations, it was assumed that current developments in genetic testing and Internet possibilities mean that, now, all donors are potentially identifiable by their offspring, so no distinction was made between anonymous and non-anonymous donation. Genetic considerations did not lead to restrictive limits (indicating that up to 200 offspring or more per donor may be acceptable except in isolated social-minority situations). Psychosocial considerations on the other hand led to proposals of rather restrictive limits (10 families per donor or less). Operational and ethical considerations did not lead to more or less concrete limits per donor, but seemed to lie in-between those resulting from the aforementioned ways of viewing the issue. In the end, no unifying agreed figure could be reached; however the consensus was that the number should never exceed 100 families. The conclusions of the group are summarized in three recommendations.
Eric Blyth is professor of social work at the University of Huddersfield and visiting professor of social work at the National University of Singapore. He was previously visiting professor of social work at the Hong Kong Polytechnic University. He is co-chair of the British Association of Social Workers Project Group on Assisted Reproduction (PROGAR) and has undertaken a number of research projects in the UK and internationally investigating third-party assisted conception, including donor insemination, egg sharing, embryo adoption, oocyte donation, known oocyte donation and surrogacy arrangements.
