Introduction: A lot of attention has been given to the quest of parents, children and donors to find donor siblings (= half siblings who share the same donor gametes but who are born in different families). However, literature is scarce about the use of the same sperm donor for subsequent children in the same family.Methods: This study included 68 lesbian and heterosexual (aspiring) parents, recruited at the Department of Reproductive Medicine of Ghent University Hospital (Belgium). The in-depth semi-structured couple interviews were performed between October 2012 and October 2013. Data were analyzed through step-by-step inductive thematic analysis.Results: The couples showed a clear preference to use the same sperm donor for their children. The most common reasons for this preference were related to the family or sibling relationships and medical reasons. Uncertainty about the availability of the same donor over time seeped through in their stories. Most lesbian aspiring parents decided that both partners should have a genetic link with at least one child.Conclusion: The use of the same sperm donor for subsequent conceptions appeared quasi unambiguously in the interviews of the lesbian and heterosexual (aspiring) parents in our study.

Over the years, connection websites and speed dating events have increasingly attracted singles and couples who cannot have a child in the ‘traditional’ way. These initiatives bring together candidate gamete providers and recipients with the promise of offering more freedom of choice than fertility centres or sperm banks currently do. Depending on the level of contact desired, the role of the gamete provider may range from not being involved at all to sharing full parental rights and obligations. In this paper, we take a look at the ethical and social issues that emerge with these new forms of family arrangements. We suggest that, although the private arrangements promote greater autonomy and control for all parties involved, risks and questionable assumptions are also at play. In particular, risks involve insufficient screening of the involved donor or co-parent, particularly in terms of motives and psychological characteristics. One must also be wary of the risk of unregulated commercialization and, more importantly, of disappointments and legal conflicts caused by unclear or changing expectations. We also warn for the risk of reinforcing heterosexist and genetic norms of parenting and valid family building.

Over the past years, a growing number of countries have legislated open-identity donation, in which donor-conceived offspring are given access to the donor’s identity once the child has reached maturity. It is held that donor anonymity creates identity problems for such children similar to the “genealogical bewilderment” described within the adoption context. The study of the social and psychological effects of open-identity donation is still very much in its infancy, but what has been left unquestioned is whether (and to what extent) offering access to the donor’s name and address is an adequate response to such effects. This study has two goals: First, we aim to provide a systematic review of the reasons why donor-conceived (DC) offspring want to know the identity of their sperm donor. Second, we examine to what extent the provision of donor-identifying information can satisfy the reasons mentioned. The most important motivations appear to be: (1) to avoid medical risks and consanguineous relationships; (2) to satisfy curiosity; (3) to learn more about the self or to complete one’s identity; (4) to learn more about what kind of person the donor is (biographical information, why he donated, etc.); (5) to form a relationship with the donor and/or his family; and (6) to learn about one’s ancestry/genealogy. Our analysis shows that for nearly all of these reasons access to the donor’s identity is not necessary. In those cases where it is, moreover, donor identification is not sufficient. What is really needed is (extended) contact with the donor, rather than the mere provision of his name.

Objective: This study aimed to gain an in-depth understanding of the experiences of genetic ties in intrafamily oocyte donation families. Background: Previous research has shown that most mothers have a good and stable relationship with their donor. Little is known about the meaning of the difference in genetic ties for parents who conceived through sister-to-sister oocyte donation. Methods: An Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis was performed and focused on both individual experiences and couple experiences with regard to genetic ties. Ten participants were recruited via an infertility clinic and took part in semistructured couple interviews. Results: Our analysis revealed that the donation was seen as a way to equal genetic parenthood. Participants struggled with this prevailing ideal of genetic parenthood and questioned the legitimacy of their motherhood. Several dynamics were identified when couples tried to deal with the imbalance in genetic ties: they acknowledged each other, convinced one another, or pushed away the difference in genetic ties. Couples also managed the presence of a genetic tie with the donor by negotiating the closeness in their family relationships. Conclusion: The lack of a full genetic tie remained a meaningful absence for some mothers and the way couples dealt with this varied. We plead that the option of post-donation care should be offered to support couples with the complexities they try to deal with.

The aim of this qualitative study was to explore how recipients viewed payment of sperm donors. The study was conducted in Belgium, where, as in many countries, sperm donors receive recompense for their time and expenses. Face-to-face semi-structured interviews were conducted with 34 heterosexual and lesbian couples who, at the time of data collection, had at least one donor-conceived child aged 7–10 years or who were undergoing donor conception treatment. Although participants commonly described the issue of financial compensation as something that did not really concern them, all supported the idea that some level of payment was acceptable or even necessary. The participants also identified several ways in which donor payment offered advantages to their own position as (future) parents. Although the idea is commonly rehearsed that sperm donation is a gift and that monetary transaction for conception is demeaning, the participants of this study did not generally share this view. To them, a small financial return served as a symbolic acknowledgement of the donor's contribution and helped secure the type of relationship they expected from their donor. There was clearly concern, however, over high payments and the risk of attracting the wrong kind of donor.

In this qualitative study, we explore how lesbian recipients view and experience the selection of their anonymous sperm donor. The study was conducted in Belgium, where fertility centres follow a legal protocol that severely restricts personal choice in donor selection. While previous studies have shown that recipients want greater control and input in the selection of their sperm donor, this was not a main concern for most women in the present study. They generally acknowledged their lack of control on the selection outcome and accepted this as part and parcel of an anonymous donation policy that provides an opportunity to have a child. They actively and passively downplayed initial concerns about the donor selection procedure and felt they did not have or need a right to further control over the donor selection. In adopting this 'subordinate' position, they felt they should trust the hospital, which they hoped would fulfil rather high screening standards. Those who did want more choice were nuanced and careful about their motivations: they focused on selecting traits that would facilitate normal child development or increase family coherence. The findings shed light on how these patients perceive their position in this third-party reproduction setting.

In the literature, relatively little attention has been paid to the meaning of donor involvement in the intimate couple dyad. The current study aimed to enrich our understanding of couples' meaning-making regarding the anonymous sperm donor and how they dealt with the donor involvement. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with nine couples, who had at least one child conceived through sperm donation. Our thematic analysis showed that the donor conception was seen as a different path to create a normal family. Once the family was formed, most couples avoided talking about the donor because it was perceived as disrupting men's growing confidence in their position as father. Participants tried to confirm the position of the father to protect the family relationships. Uncertainties about how they were perceived as parents showed the continuing dominance of genetic ties within our social discourse. Participants also dealt with reminders of the donor in their daily life. Overall, they tried to manage the space taken up by the donor and to protect the position of the father. We relate our findings to literature on topic avoidance and shared obliviousness in families. For counseling practice, it could be useful to explore couples' meaning-making about the donor as this seemed to serve family functioning.

Sinds enkele jaren ondergaat de praktijk van de gametendonatie internationaal een sterke evolutie. Zowel in de literatuur als in de praktijk weerklinken er steeds vaker stemmen om donorkinderen informatie te geven over hun donor. Opvallend is dat deze beweging zich enkel concentreert op de belangen van de donorkinderen. In dit manuscript wordt er ingezoomd op een andere partij: de donor. Er wordt nagegaan of donoren eveneens belang hebben bij informatie over hun donorkinderen en of dit een voldoende reden is om ze hierop recht te geven. De volgende argumenten komen aan bod: 1. donoren hebben belang bij medische informatie over hun donorkinderen voor hun eigen gezondheid, 2. donoren moeten erkenning krijgen voor hun altruistische daad in de vorm van informatie over het aantal donorkinderen geboren uit hun donatie, 3. de bezorgdheid van sommige donoren over het welzijn van hun donorkinderen zou verminderd kunnen worden door algemene informatie hierover, 4. donoren hebben belang bij bepaalde informatie over hun donorkinderen voor een volledige ontwikkeling van hun identiteit en 5. identificerende informatie is bruikbaar voor donoren die contact wensen met hun donorkinderen. De argumenten 1, 2 en 4 blijken voldoende redenen te vormen om hierop een recht te baseren.

It is widely agreed among health professionals that couples using donor insemination should be offered counselling on the topic of donor conception disclosure. However, it is clear from the literature that there has long been a lack of agreement about which counselling approach should be used in this case: a directive or a non-directive approach. In this paper we investigate which approach is ethically justifiable by balancing the two underlying principles of autonomy (non-directive approach) and beneficence (directive approach). To overrule one principle in favour of another, six conditions should be fulfilled. We analyse the arguments in favour of the beneficence principle, and consequently, a directive approach. This analysis shows that two conditions are not met; the principle of autonomy should not be overridden. Therefore, at this moment, a directive counselling approach on donor conception disclosure cannot be ethically justified.

STUDY QUESTIONWhat meanings do lesbian couples construct regarding their sperm donor?SUMMARY ANSWERFor some parents, the donor was increasingly presented as a person, whereas for other parents, the donor was seen as an instrument from the moment they received the sperm donation.WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADYFew studies specifically focus on how lesbian couples deal with the issue of third-party anonymous gamete donation. It is often assumed that they have fewer difficulties than heterosexual couples with the involvement of a male procreator, since their status as a donor conception family is 'socially visible' and there is no social father who fears exclusion.STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATIONSemi-structured interviews were conducted with 10 lesbian couples (20 participants), recruited via the Ghent University Hospital. All couples had at least one child, conceived through anonymous donor insemination, between 7 and 10 years old.PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODSWithin the data corpus, a particular data set was analyzed where couples referred to their donor and his position in their family. Step-by-step inductive thematic analysis was performed resulting in themes that are grounded in the data. All phases of the analysis were followed by team discussion.MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCEThis study reveals different donor constructs, indicating different ways of dealing with the third-party involvement in the family. Some parents diminish the role of the donor throughout family life and continue to present him as an instrument: something they needed in order to become parents. Others show an increasing interest in the donor as the children mature, which results in a more personalized account of the donor.LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTIONIn our qualitative cross-sectional study, we collected retrospectively constructed stories. Longitudinal qualitative and quantitative research is required to allow for an extrapolation of the conclusions made.WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGSThis study shows how the concept of the donor is constructed within lesbian families and how it is challenged by the child's developing personality and features. When counseling prospective parents, it could therefore be useful to discuss the concept of the anonymous donor beyond the conception phase.STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)The project was funded by the Research Fund of Ghent University, Belgium. There are no competing interests.