In its report on donor conception, the Nuffield Council on Bioethics talks about ‘information sharing’. That means when and how to tell your child they were donor conceived. It makes some good points. But ethical arguments don’t always take account of the real world. Where, in that 200-page paper, does it actually celebrate the wonderful altruism of donors? In the UK, egg and sperm donors face barriers. Their impulse to donate is often knocked back by ethical overthinking and distrustful attitudes.
Parents should tell their donor-conceived child early, the report recommends, about their origins. Fair enough: the evidence supporting early disclosure has been around for some time. The state, it says, should take a back seat in educating parents about why and how to do it. Don’t make it mandatory, it adds, to have the child’s birth certificate stamped with donor information. (That was once on the cards. Honestly.)
Should Egg and Sperm Donation Be Anonymous?
The report says anonymous donation should not be reintroduced in the UK (it was stopped in 2005).
This blog has long supported donor anonymity. The report takes the opposite view.
Don’t tell that to France, Spain and the Czech Republic, where anonymity remains the norm. Are they unethical? Of course not.
Meanwhile, thousands of British couples continue to wait many months—or even longer—for donor eggs and sperm as demand outstrips supply.
Why Egg and Sperm Donors Deserve More Recognition
Egg and sperm donors are heroic.
For modest compensation, they undergo invasive medical procedures to help other people build families. Yet, for some reason, the UK continues to treat donors with unnecessary suspicion. When genetics are involved, the assumption often seems to be that tighter regulation is always better.
The Nuffield report arguably reinforces this cautious approach.
Anonymous UK donors—those who donated before anonymity was removed in 2005—should be encouraged, it says, to register voluntarily so offspring can contact them.
Really?
Many of those donors may have donated precisely because anonymity was guaranteed. Changing those expectations years later seems difficult to justify.
Could Current UK Rules Discourage Donors?
The report also suggests that egg donors should receive more counselling and education before donating. In some cases, partners should also be involved before consent is given.
Helping donors make informed decisions is important. But it’s equally important that the process doesn’t become unnecessarily intimidating.
We’ll never know how many potential donors are discouraged by complex regulation and the perception that donation is surrounded by ethical obstacles.
At a time when donor shortages remain a major challenge, attracting more donors should be a priority.
Should Donor Conception Laws Be More Flexible?
In our view, the current system gives too much control to the state and too little to the people directly involved.
Through changes in the law, it should be possible to create a more flexible system that allows those involved in IVF with donor eggs to make informed choices together.
If a donor prefers anonymity, that choice should be respected.
If both the donor and the donor-conceived child wish to make contact later in life, they should also have the freedom to do so.
Our View
The HFEA—and the wider ethical culture surrounding egg donation in the UK—has good intentions, but current policies may not always serve donors or recipients as well as they could.
As donor conception becomes increasingly common, there is an opportunity to modernise the rules. Greater flexibility, better support for donors and more choice for the families directly involved could help increase donor availability while respecting the wishes of everyone concerned.
