2.2.1 CURRENT LEGISLATION
The HFE Act (1990) legislated that all gametes involved in donor conception treatment were to be from anonymous donors13. In 2004, the Act was updated14
and donor anonymity was removed; consequently when donor-‐conceived children born after 1st April 2005 turn 16 years old they can request non-‐
identifying information about the donor such as ethnicity, physical
characteristics, medical history, year and country of birth and the number and gender of any children that their donor(s) might have had; and from age 18 then they can request identifying information about their donor(s), such as their full names and last known address. The latest amendment15 allows donor-‐
conceived offspring, aged 17 and over, to access identifying information about donor ‘siblings’ on the premise that both parties agree to this information being shared. The updated act further states that it is best for donor-‐conceived
children to be told about their conception during early childhood, based on evidence of emotional damage of finding out later in life.
2.2.2 REASONS BEHIND REMOVAL OF ANONYMITY
To encourage disclosure
It has been suggested that donor anonymity supported non-‐disclosure (Daniels & Taylor, 1993) which is evidenced by parents giving anonymity as a reason for non-‐disclosure (see 2.1.3). Previously, the focus was on adults fulfilling their wish to have a child, but more recently, the needs of donor-‐conceived offspring are attended to.
13 There are however instances where donor-‐offspring have made contact with their
donor relatives through informal channels such as ‘The Donor Sibling Link’ and the Donor Conceived Register
14The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (Disclosure of Donor
Information) Regulations, 2004)
To encourage early disclosure
As stipulated in current UK law, early disclosure is now deemed to be in the child’s best interests. This was based on growing evidence that when donor-‐ conceived offspring are told about their conception before adolescence and in gradual stages then they appear to accept this (see 2.1.4). Another benefit is that it removes the possibility of children accidentally discovering that they were conceived differently, which as discussed (see 2.1.4) can have negative consequences.
An increasing number of intended parents wanted identifiable donors
Another contributing factor was the increased availability of fertility treatment for non-‐traditional families including SMCs, and FCs, who now form a significant proportion of treatments involving the use of donor sperm (section 1.2.2) and tend to prefer identifiable donors over anonymous donors because it provides their children with an opportunity to know more information about their donor and possibly meet them in the future (Scheib, Riordan, & Rubin, 2003).
To provide donor-‐offspring a chance to know their donor relatives
Some donor-‐conceived offspring are interested to know information about their donor relatives (Jadva et al., 2009; Scheib et al., 2005) to give them a fuller understanding of themselves; whilst not impossible through unconventional avenues16 this is difficult to do when donors remain unknown.
2.2.3 THE IMPACT OF THE LAW CHANGE ON DISCLOSURE
UK legislation now encourages disclosure through the use of identifiable donors and also advises parents that disclosure is best (see 3.1.1). It does not, however, impose mandatory disclosure, so parents can decide whether or not to reveal this to their children. As explained by Ravitsky (2010), four components need to be in place in order for children to know details relevant to their donor conception. The first three aspects: 1) right to full medical history, 2) right to information relevant to development of identity and 3) right to donor’s identity,
are implemented by UK legislation. However, these are only possible if parents
implement the fourth aspect: the disclosure of donor-‐conception. It has now
been over a decade since the removal of donor anonymity, but little is known about the impact of identifiable donors on parents’ disclosure decisions in the UK.
The impact of identifiable donors
UK Law is now reflective of other countries that support openness through the use of identifiable donors. Sweden was the first country to pass legislation about disclosure, since then other countries, including: Austria, Switzerland,
Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Finland and Australia (Western Australia and Victoria states) only offer identifiable donors (Lalos et al., 2007). An early Swedish study found that only one, out of 92 couples, planned to disclose when they had used anonymously donated sperm (Milsom & Bergman, 1982). In 1985, Sweden banned anonymity and a later study found that 52% of parents who used identifiable sperm donation had either already disclosed, or planned to do so (Gottlieb, Lalos, & Lindblad, 2000). It cannot be concluded whether the increased number is due to the use of identifiable sperm, but it does suggest that in Sweden, parental attitudes towards disclosure changed over time. However, in Belgium, parents who had conceived using donated eggs were no more, or less likely to disclose to their children whether an anonymous or identifiable donor was used (Laruelle, Place, Demeestere, Englert, & Delbaere, 2011). Thus, the impact of identifiable donation on disclosure rates is
inconclusive.
Only one study (Freeman, Zadeh, Smith, & Golombok, 2016) has explored the impact of identifiable donors in the UK. Semi-‐structured interviews were conducted with 31 SMCs and 47 heterosexual mothers in a couple, who had children aged four to eight years old conceived using identifiable sperm donors. At the time of the study 55% of SMC’s and 36% of coupled mothers had begun to disclose. For coupled mothers, the disclosure proportions were not dissimilar to a comparable UK study using anonymously donated sperm which identified a disclosure rate of 28% at aged seven (Readings et al., 2011). Therefore, the use
of identifiable donors does not appear to have resulted in a marked increase in disclosure. One reason for this could be that parents are not receiving adequate support to guide them through the disclosure process (see 3.1.4 for full
discussion), and because a formalised system of disclosure is absent (Frith, 2001).
Overall, although some studies show that parents who used identifiable donors are more inclined towards disclosure, it remains unclear exactly if and how the use of identifiable donors has shaped these trends, and if indeed parents are more likely to disclose if they have used identifiable donors, especially in the context of ED/DD.