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.