Anonymous or identity-registered sperm donors? A study of Dutch recipients' choices.

BACKGROUND: The aim of the present study was to gain insight into parents' own donor preferences within a system offering the choice between an anonymous and identity-registered donor. A comparison was made between recipients choosing for an anonymous donor (AD choosers) and those choosing for an identifiable donor (ID choosers) with regard to their sexual orientation, demographic characteristics, disclosure issues and infertility distress. METHODS: Data from 105 couples (61% heterosexual, 39% lesbian) were registered on a standardized form during implication counselling sessions previous to treatment. RESULTS: Sixty-three per cent of the heterosexual couples and 98% of the lesbian couples had chosen an ID donor. Major differences between ID and AD choosers were identified. Among the ID choosers secrecy towards the child was no option, whereas 83% of the AD choosers did not intend to inform their child. Compared with heterosexual ID choosers, AD choosers were more distressed about their infertility and had a lower educational level. CONCLUSION: Legislation imposing ID donors appears to be acceptable for the majority of this study population. For a vulnerable group of heterosexual couples, who remained secretive about the use of a donor, adaptation to the new system is not self-evident.

Donor insemination: Dutch parents' opinions about confidentiality and donor anonymity and the emotional adjustment of their children.

Results from a comparative study investigating 38 donor insemination (DI) Dutch families with 4-8 year old children are presented. The aims of this study were to investigate parents' opinions on the issues of confidentiality and donor anonymity, to assess the emotional development of the children, and to examine in DI families the association between secrecy with regard to the use of a donor and the emotional adjustment of the children. The DI families were compared to families with a child conceived by in-vitro fertilization (IVF) and to families with a naturally conceived child. Secrecy appeared to be associated with DI and not with IVF: 74% of the DI parents intended not to inform the child about the way in which she/he was conceived, whereas none of the IVF parents intended to keep the secret. Only one set of DI parents and two sets of IVF parents had actually told the child. As to donor anonymity, a spread of opinions appeared among DI parents; 57% preferred an anonymous donor, 31% would have liked non-identifying information about the donor, 9% preferred the donor's identity to be registered and 3% remained unsure. Parents' major concern was to know more about the medical/genetic background of the donor. Mothers and fathers in the DI families differed in their opinions concerning the issues of confidentiality and donor anonymity: fathers, more often than mothers, were secretive with regard to the use of a donor and husbands, more often than their wives, were in favour of donor anonymity. With regard to the emotional development of the children, more emotional/behavioural problems were revealed among DI children than among children who were naturally conceived. No association was found between secrecy and the emotional/behavioural adjustment of the children.