“I want us to be a normal family”: Toward an understanding of the functions of anonymity among U.S. oocyte donors and recipients

Abstract

Background: Anonymity remains the more common practice in gamete donations, but legislation prohibiting anonymity with a goal of protecting donor-conceived children’s right to know their genetic origins is becoming more common. However, given the dearth of research investigating the function of anonymity for donors and recipients, it is unclear whether these policies will accomplish their goals. The aim of this study was to explore experiences with anonymity among oocyte donors and recipients who participated in an anonymous donor oocyte program and to understand the ways in which anonymity functions for them. Methods: Semistructured interviews were conducted with 50 women: 28 oocyte donors and 22 recipients who were recruited from an academic center for reproductive medicine in the United States. Results: Donors and recipients view anonymity both as a mechanism to protect the interests of all parties (recipients, donors, and donor-conceived children) and as a point of conflict. Specifically, three key areas were identified where both donors and recipients saw anonymity as having an important role: relieving anxieties about family structures and obligations; protecting their interests and those of donor-conceived children (while acknowledging where interests conflict); and managing the future. Conclusion: As gamete donation increasingly moves away from the practice of anonymity, examining why anonymity matters to stakeholders will be helpful in devising strategies to successfully implement identity-release options.

Keywords:

• gamete donation
• oocyte donors
• oocyte recipients
• anonymity
• identity release

Acknowledgments

We thank Danielle Bitterman, Hannah Zornow, Mytra Haerizadeh, Cheryl Sabatino, and Rodriq Stubbs for their invaluable help with this project. Thanks also to Michelle Leve, Laura Joseph, and Elizabeth Grill for conducting interviews and providing clinical insights. Thanks are also due to our research participants, without whom this study would not have been possible.

Ethical approval

This study was approved by the institutional review board(s) at Weill Cornell Medicine and New School for Social Research.

Notes

1 Identification happens when the donor-conceived individual reaches 16 or 18 years of age, depending upon the jurisdiction, and only if they request it.

2 We thank an anonymous reviewer for reminding us of this point.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Inmaculada de Melo-Martín

All authors were involved in the conception and design of the study. Inmaculada de Melo-Martín and Lisa Rubin were responsible for data collection and took the lead for data analysis with input from Ina Cholst. Inmaculada de Melo-Martin and Lisa Rubin drafted the initial article. All authors revised the article critically for intellectual content and approved the final article.

Lisa R. Rubin

All authors were involved in the conception and design of the study. Inmaculada de Melo-Martín and Lisa Rubin were responsible for data collection and took the lead for data analysis with input from Ina Cholst. Inmaculada de Melo-Martin and Lisa Rubin drafted the initial article. All authors revised the article critically for intellectual content and approved the final article.

Ina N. Cholst

All authors were involved in the conception and design of the study. Inmaculada de Melo-Martín and Lisa Rubin were responsible for data collection and took the lead for data analysis with input from Ina Cholst. Inmaculada de Melo-Martin and Lisa Rubin drafted the initial article. All authors revised the article critically for intellectual content and approved the final article.