Reproductive Ethics · ART Ethics
Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, 2018 · Fertility and sterility
Intended parents engage with gestational carriers in an attempt to achieve their personal reproductive goals. All gestational carriers have a right to be fully informed of the risks as well as the contractual and legal aspects of the gestational-carrier process. Gestational carriers have autonomy in making their own decisions regarding medical care and should be free from undue influences by the stakeholders involved. They should have free access to and receive psychological evaluation and counseling before, during, and after participating. Gestational carriers require independent legal counsel regarding the execution of contracts. This document replaces the document of the same name, last published in 2013 (Fertil Steril 2013;99:1838-1841).
Reproductive Ethics · ART Ethics
Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, 2018 · Fertility and sterility
Professionals who discover misconduct or other undisclosed information that would be material to the participation of another party (such as a donor, gestational carrier, intended parent, or lawyer) in an assisted reproductive technology arrangement should encourage disclosure to that party. In some instances, it is ethically permissible for the physician either to disclose material information to the affected party or to decline to provide care. In all cases involving the legal status or rights of the parties, referral to legal professionals is advised. This document replaces the document of the same name, last published in 2014 (Fertil Steril 2014;101:38-42).
Reproductive Ethics · Third Party Reproduction
Mahlstedt PP et al., 2010 · Fertility and sterility
To provide an in-depth analysis of offspring attitudes toward their means of conception and the practice of sperm donation in the United States. Survey-based study using a 46-item questionnaire. Eighty-five adult offspring of sperm donation. Participants were recruited through an Internet-based support group for adults conceived through sperm donation. Eighty-five of them completed the questionnaire provided through a link to another Internet site. Responses to a 46-item questionnaire. A majority of offspring learned of their conception at age >18 years during a planned conversation; had no information about their donor; viewed their donor as their "biological father"; had searched for and wanted identifying information on their donor and half-siblings; and supported the provision of extensive nonidentifying information or identity release in the practice of sperm donation. Participant attitudes toward their means of conception were evenly distributed from "very good" to "very bad." Other descriptive information on participants contributed to an understanding of their attitudes. Participant ratings of their conception were evenly distributed from "very good" to "very bad." Most believed that identifying information should be provided to recipients and that they themselves would not participate in the practice of gamete donation.
Reproductive Ethics · Third Party Reproduction
Indekeu A, 2025 · Human Reproduction
Abstract
The general point of view on disclosure of the donor conception to the offspring experienced a major change over the years. From the outset, non-disclosure was imposed by medical professionals. Decades of debates followed, discussing if disclosure or non-disclosure would be in the best interest of the donor-conceived person, before the recommendation to disclose the donor conception to the offspring was integrated in professional guidelines such as those of ASRM (2013) and ESHRE (2024). This change in view was supported by research findings showing that late disclosure (and often discovery) has a negative impact on the wellbeing of donor-conceived people, that early disclosure is not burdensome for donor-conceived children (moreover, it is preferred by donor-conceived people), and that early disclosure is associated with better well-being of donor-conceived people during adolescence. Moreover, societal changes, such as the technological development of direct-to-consumer-genetic testing, have made non-disclosure impossible. Lastly, the framing of disclosure as a question concerning ‘the best interest’ of donor-conceived people has been replaced by a framework that information about one’s origin concerns a fundamental human right.
Not only did the recommendation regarding disclosure/non-disclosure changed, also the knowledge about disclosure increased. While initially disclosure was often approached as a dichotomous act, research findings showed that disclosure occurs much more in layers. Moreover, disclosure is not a one-off activity, but (as preferred by donor-conceived people themselves) an ongoing conversation over the family-life course, that continues when the child grows up. Besides, disclosure is not a unilateral process in which only parents take up an active role, but it is an interactive process in which parent and child co-create their family-story. Lastly, disclosure does not only concern the origins of the child, but it is also a family-building story, in which parents formed their family in a different way they initially imagined.
In relation to the actual disclosure process, studies have shown that parental confidence is generally associated with disclosure and a lack of confidence (including uncertainty around the language to use, the best way and time to disclose, and finding the information difficult to share) is associated with non-disclosure. A recent literature review showed that many participants across studies reported feelings of being unprepared, isolation and anxiety around the disclosure decision and process, and express a desire for support. Parents would like to hear experiences from other parents and to have access to resources, such as storybooks and movies, and networking opportunities for the donor-conceived people as they might enhance feeling comfortable with the disclosure process. However, support and advice were not always provided.
This presentation reviews the latest existing empirical data regarding the disclosure-process (factors that might influence the process, outcomes, experiences of parents and donor-conceived people) and will especially address how, psychosocial as well as medical, professionals can support families in their ongoing conversation about their family-building, pre-, during and post-treatment. Furthermore, challenges and limitations of offering ongoing support will be discussed as well, based on an inquiry conducted in 10 jurisdictions.