Attitudes of anonymous and identity-release oocyte donors towards future contact with donor offspring

STUDY QUESTION What are the attitudes and expectations of past oocyte donors concerning contact with their donor offspring and contact between donor offspring and their own children? SUMMARY ANSWER The large majority (95%) of open-identity oocyte donors, as well as voluntarily registered donors (registered before the Finnish 2007 ART law), expressed positive or neutral feelings towards contact with their donor offspring and mainly positive expectations towards contact between donor offspring and their own children. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY Although there is a growing support for openness and identity-release programmes in gamete donation, there is not much knowledge on how donors feel about potential contact with their offspring. Most previous studies have investigated donor expectations with a relatively short follow-up time, using small samples or participants in voluntary donor linkage services. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION A retrospective cross-sectional survey of all women who had donated oocytes between 1990 and 2012 at three fertility clinics in Finland was carried out in 2013. A self-administered questionnaire was sent out to a total of 569 former oocyte donors. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS In total, 428 former oocyte donors answered a questionnaire assessing experiences and attitudes related to donation (response rate 75.2%). In this study, 358 donors who were unknown to the recipient were included. The mean follow-up time after the donation was 11.2 years. Before 2008, donors were non-identifiable but could voluntarily consent to release their identifying information to their donor offspring. After 2008, persons born as a result of gamete donation can, from the age of 18, receive information identifying the donor. Altogether 290 respondents had participated in a donation programme in 1990-2007 (before the Finnish ART-law), and 68 participated after the enactment of the ART-law, enabling us to compare attitudes by type of legislation during donation. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE Most voluntarily registered and open-identity donors welcomed or were neutral to potential contact with their donor offspring but were slightly more cautious towards contact between their own children and a donor-conceived child. Open-end comments revealed some ambiguity and uncertainty as to what to expect from such contact and feelings varied from neutral curiosity and interest to desire to meet the donor-conceived child. LIMITATIONS, REASON FOR CAUTION It is not possible to assess whether the opinions of the study participants is representative of all donors in 1990-2012, as 25% of all contacted former donors did not respond to the survey. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS This study is one of only a few studies among oocyte donors to evaluate long-term psychosocial consequences of the donation and expectations towards contact with donor offspring, using a large sample. Results from this study show that persisting concerns about adverse outcomes of identity release policies are largely unwarranted, but there is a need to develop counselling practices and material for identity-release donors about how to prepare for and adjust to potential contact with donor offspring. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S) This study was supported by grants from the Medical Society Life and Health, and from the Otto A. Malm Foundation. The authors have no competing interests to report. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER N/A.

[1]  Jennifer K. Blakemore,et al.  Experiences and psychological outcomes of the oocyte donor: a survey of donors post-donation from one center , 2019, Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics.

[2]  Christine Wyns,et al.  ART in Europe, 2015: results generated from European registries by ESHRE† , 2020, Human reproduction open.

[3]  M. Tallandini,et al.  Parental disclosure of assisted reproductive technology (ART) conception to their children: a systematic and meta-analytic review. , 2016, Human reproduction.

[4]  H. Abdalla,et al.  Investigating psychosocial attitudes, motivations and experiences of oocyte donors, recipients and egg sharers: a systematic review. , 2016, Human reproduction update.

[5]  V. Söderström-Anttila,et al.  Short- and long-term health consequences and current satisfaction levels for altruistic anonymous, identity-release and known oocyte donors. , 2016, Human reproduction.

[6]  V. Goossens,et al.  Abstract book of the 31st ESHRE Annual Meeting, Lisbon, Portugal, 14-17 June 2015. , 2015, Human reproduction.

[7]  C. Lampic,et al.  Preferences and needs regarding future contact with donation offspring among identity-release gamete donors: results from the Swedish Study on Gamete Donation. , 2014, Fertility and sterility.

[8]  C. Lampic,et al.  Attitudes towards disclosure and relationship to donor offspring among a national cohort of identity-release oocyte and sperm donors , 2014, Human reproduction.

[9]  J. Fisher,et al.  Gamete donors' expectations and experiences of contact with their donor offspring , 2014, Human reproduction.

[10]  K. Chevreul,et al.  The diversity of regulation and public financing of IVF in Europe and its impact on utilization. , 2013, Human reproduction.

[11]  M. Crawshaw,et al.  Working with previously anonymous gamete donors and donor-conceived adults: recent practice experiences of running the Dna-based voluntary information exchange and contact register, UK Donorlink , 2013, Human fertility.

[12]  K. Demyttenaere,et al.  A systematic review of sperm donors: demographic characteristics, attitudes, motives and experiences of the process of sperm donation. , 2013, Human reproduction update.

[13]  W. Kramer,et al.  Semen donors who are open to contact with their offspring: issues and implications for them and their families. , 2012, Reproductive biomedicine online.

[14]  A. Thurin-Kjellberg,et al.  Two decades after legislation on identifiable donors in Sweden: are recipient couples ready to be open about using gamete donation? , 2011, Human reproduction.

[15]  S. Golombok,et al.  Sperm and oocyte donors' experiences of anonymous donation and subsequent contact with their donor offspring. , 2011, Human reproduction.

[16]  O. van den Akker,et al.  Systematic review of oocyte donation: investigating attitudes, motivations and experiences. , 2009, Human reproduction update.

[17]  K. Daniels Anonymity and openness and the recruitment of gamete donors. Part I: semen donors , 2007, Human fertility.

[18]  K. Daniels Anonymity and openness and the recruitment of gamete donors. Part 2: Oocyte donors , 2007, Human fertility.

[19]  J. E. Scheib,et al.  Adolescents with open-identity sperm donors: reports from 12-17 year olds. , 2005, Human reproduction.

[20]  S. Klock,et al.  Psychological characteristics and factors related to willingness to donate again among anonymous oocyte donors. , 2003, Fertility and sterility.

[21]  W. Meyer,et al.  Anonymous oocyte donation: a follow-up questionnaire. , 2001, Fertility and sterility.

[22]  S. Weaver,et al.  Motivation, attitudes and experience of donation: a follow-up of women donating eggs in assisted conception treatment. , 1998, Journal of community & applied social psychology.

[23]  V. Söderström-Anttila Follow-up study of Finnish volunteer oocyte donors concerning their attitudes to oocyte donation. , 1995, Human reproduction.

[24]  S. Golombok,et al.  Ethics and society: A survey of semen donation: phase II — the view of the donors , 1995 .