Donor Programs in Human Reproduction: Reviewing the Debate on Anonymity and Openness

DOI: https://doi.org/10.15826/csp.2025.9.3.356

Abstract

This study is a comprehensive review of English-language academic literature on donor anonymity in assisted reproductive technology (ART) procedures. It systematically examines arguments for and against anonymity, explores the risks associated with de-anonymization, and analyzes the motivations of recipients and donors in choosing either anonymity or openness. Psychological aspects related to these decisions, as well as the consequences of concealing a donor’s identity, are also addressed. The review highlights how technological developments, particularly the increasing accessibility of genetic testing, are reshaping social and legal attitudes toward donor anonymity. Findings indicate that absolute anonymity is no longer feasible, a trend likely to drive many countries toward adopting the principle of openness. This shift necessitates careful review of mechanisms for informing donors (and, where applicable, recipients) while safeguarding their privacy. The study provides a foundation for future empirical research to confirm or challenge these conclusions and to formulate newresearch objectives. Additionally, by synthesizing current knowledge, this review offers valuable insights for legislative bodies, regulatory agencies, medical institutions, and other stakeholders involved in ART, supporting evidence-based policymaking and practice.

Author Biographies

Irina G. Polyakova, Ural Federal University, Yekaterinburg

Irina G. Polyakova, Cand. Sci. (Sociology), Deputy Director for General Affairs of the Ural Institute of Humanities, Ural Federal University. Research interests: Psychological support in assisted reproductive technologies (ART); motivations for reproductive donation by type of gamete; the donor’s role as a partner; advantages and disadvantages of donor anonymity; donor–recipient dyad dynamics (married couples); methods of psychological support in reproductive donation; strategies to assist recipients in decision-making and acceptance of donor material. She is the author (co-author) of more than 30 publications indexed in the WoS and SCOPUS databases.

Marina V. Valeeva, Ural Federal University, Yekaterinburg

Marina V. Valeeva, Cand. Sci. (Sociology), Senior Researcher of the Laboratory of Scientometry of the Ural Institute of Humanities, Ural Federal University. Research interests: family sociology and marital relations, sociology of gender relations, youth sociology, sociology of science. Professional competencies and skills: managing full-cycle sociological projects and proficiency in all types of activities across various stages of sociological research. Additional skills: scientometric and bibliographic analysis. The author (co-author) of more than 25 publications.

Anastasia A. Lebedeva, V. F. Yakovlev Ural State Law University, Yekaterinburg

Anastasia A. Lebedeva is a Bachelor student, V. F. Yakovlev Ural State Law University. Research interests: medical law.

Alexandra Yu. Khramtsova, Ural Research Institute of Maternity and Child Care, Yekaterinburg

Alexandra Y. Khramtsova, obstetrician-gynecologist, reproductologist. Cand. Sci. (Medicine), Researcher, Department of Assisted Reproductive Technologies, Research Institute of Obstetrics and Maternity Care. Research interests: infertility, assisted reproductive technologies, in vitro fertilization, ethics in reproductive medicine. She is the author (co-author) of more than 12 publications indexed in the WoS and SCOPUS databases. Alexandra Y. Khramtsova is an expert in medical innovations. She is the Secretary of the Section for Young Scientists and Students, Russian Association of Human Reproduction (RARCH).

References


  • Allan, S. (2011). Psycho-social, ethical and legal arguments for and against the retrospective release of information about donors to donor-conceived individuals in Australia. Journal of Law and Medicine, 19(2), 354–376.

  • Allan, S. (2017). Donor conception and the search for information: From secrecy and anonymity to openness. Routledge.

  • Almeling, R. (2006). “Why do you want to be a donor?”: Gender and the production of altruism in egg and sperm donation. New Genetics and Society, 25(2), 143–157. https://doi.org/10.1080/14636770600855184

  • Álvarez Plaza, C., & Pichardo Galán, J. I. (2018). The construction of the “good sperm donor”: Selection, choice, anonymity and traceability. Papeles del CEIC, 2018(2), Article 194. https://doi.org/10.1387/pceic.18846

  • Appleby, J. B., Blake, L., & Freeman, T. (2012). Is disclosure in the best interests of children conceived by donation? In M. Richards, G. Pennings, & J. B. Appleby (Eds.), Reproductive donation: Practice, policy and bioethics (pp. 231–249). Cambridge University Press.

  • Bauer, T. (2022). A systematic review of qualitative studies investigating motives and experiences of recipients of anonymous gamete donation. Frontiers in Sociology, 7, Article 746847. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsoc.2022.746847

  • Bertrand-Servais, M., Letur-Könirsch, H., Raoul-Duval, A., & Frydman, R. (1993). Psychological considerations of anonymous oocyte donation. Human Reproduction, 8(6), 874–879. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.humrep.a138158

  • Blake, L., Jadva, V., & Golombok, S. (2014). Parent psychological adjustment, donor conception and disclosure: A follow-up over 10 years. Human Reproduction, 29(11), 2487–2496. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/deu231

  • Blyth, E., Crawshaw, M., Frith, L., & Jones, C. (2012). Donor-conceived people’s views and experiences of their genetic origins: A critical analysis of the research evidence. Journal of Law and Medicine, 19(4), 769–789.

  • Burke, R., Lavery, Y. O., Katznelson, G., North, J., Boyd, J. W. (2021). How do individuals who were conceived through the use of donor technologies feel about the nature of their conception? Harvard Medical School Center for Bioethics. https://bioethics.hms.harvard.edu/journal/donor-technology

  • Cahn, N. (2017). What’s right about knowing? Journal of Law and the Biosciences, 4(2), 377–383. https://doi.org/10.1093/jlb/lsx018

  • Cahn, N. R., & Kramer, W. (2011, September 13). Sperm donors should not be anonymous. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/09/13/making-laws-about-making-babies/sperm-donors-should-not-be-anonymous

  • Craft, I., & Thornhill, A. (2005). Would “all-inclusive” compensation attract more gamete donors to balance their loss of anonymity? Reproductive BioMedicine Online, 10(3), 301–306. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1472-6483(10)61787-7

  • Crawshaw, M., Gunter, C., Tidy, C., & Atherton, F. (2013). Working with previously anonymous gamete donors and donor-conceived adults: Recent practice experiences of running the DNA-based voluntary information exchange and contact register, UK DonorLink. Human Fertility, 16(1), 26–30. https://doi.org/10.3109/14647273.2012.731714

  • De Jonge, C., & Barratt, C. L. (2006). Gamete donation: A question of anonymity. Fertility and Sterility, 85(2), 500–501. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2005.07.1304

  • Freeman, T., Appleby, J. B., & Jadva, V. (2012). Identifiable donors and siblings: Implications for the future. In M. Richards, G. Pennings, & J. B. Appleby (Eds.), Reproductive donation: Practice, policy and bioethics (pp. 250–269). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139026390.014

  • Frith, L. (2001). Gamete donation and anonymity: The ethical and legal debate. Human Reproduction, 16(5), 818–824. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/16.5.818

  • Frith, L., Blyth, E., & Farrand, A. (2007). UK gamete donors’ reflections on the removal of anonymity: Implications for recruitment. Human Reproduction, 22(6), 1675–1680. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dem061

  • Golombok, S., Blake, L., Casey, P., Roman, G., & Jadva, V. (2013). Children born through reproductive donation: A longitudinal study of psychological adjustment. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 54(6), 653–660. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.12015

  • Graham, S., Jadva, V., Freeman, T., Ahuja, K., & Golombok, S. (2016). Being an identity-release donor: A qualitative study exploring the motivations, experiences and future expectations of current UK egg donors. Human Fertility, 19(4), 230–241. https://doi.org/10.1080/14647273.2016.1221148

  • Harper, J. C., Kennett, D., & Reisel, D. (2016). The end of donor anonymity: How genetic testing is likely to drive anonymous gamete donation out of business. Human Reproduction, 31(6), 1135–1140. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dew065

  • Hibino, Y., & Allan, S. (2020). Absence of laws regarding sperm and oocyte donation in Japan and the impacts on donors, parents, and the people born as a result. Reproductive Medicine and Biology, 19(3), 295–298. https://doi.org/10.1002/rmb2.12329

  • Indekeu, A., Dierickx, K., Schotsmans, P., Daniels, K. R., Rober, P., & D’Hooghe, T. (2013). Factors contributing to parental decision-making in disclosing donor conception: A systematic review. Human Reproduction Update, 19(6), 714–733. https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dmt018

  • Ishii, T., & de Miguel Beriain, I. (2022). Shifting to a model of donor conception that entails a communication agreement among the parents, donor, and offspring. BMC Medical Ethics, 23, Article 18. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-022-00756-1

  • Kalampalikis, N., Doumergue, M., Zadeh, S., & French Federation of CECOS (2018). Sperm donor regulation and disclosure intentions: Results from a nationwide multi-centre study in France. Reproductive BioMedicine & Society Online, 5, 38–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbms.2018.02.001

  • Laruelle, C., Place, I., Demeestere, I., Englert, Y., & Delbaere, A. (2011). Anonymity and secrecy options of recipient couples and donors, and ethnic origin influence in three types of oocyte donation. Human Reproduction, 26(2), 382–390. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/deq346

  • Melo-Martín, I. (2016). How best to protect the vital interests of donorconceived individuals: Prohibiting or mandating anonymity in gamete donations? Reproductive Biomedicine and Society Online, 3, 100–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbms.2017.01.003

  • Miettinen, A., Rotkirch, A., Suikkari, A.-M., & Söderström-Anttila, V. (2019). Attitudes of anonymous and identity-release oocyte donors towards future contact with donor offspring. Human Reproduction, 34(4), 672–678. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dez009

  • Pearlman, A. (2019, May 23). Gamete donor anonymity is a myth: Q&A with Seema Mohapatra. Bill of Health. https://blog.petrieflom.law.harvard.edu/2019/05/23/gamete-donor-anonymity-is-a-myth-a-qa-with-seema-mohapatra/

  • Nelson, M. K., Hertz, R., & Kramer, W. (2016). Gamete donor anonymity and limits on numbers of offspring: The views of three stakeholders. Journal of Law and the Biosciences, 3(1), 39–67. https://doi.org/10.1093/jlb/lsv045

  • Pennings, G., Mocanu, E., Herrmann, J. R., Skytte, A.-B., Burke, C., & Pacey, A. (2021). Attitudes of sperm donors towards offspring, identity release and extended genetic screening. Reproductive BioMedicine Online, 43(4), 700–707. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2021.06.025

  • Readings, J., Blake, L., Casey, P., Jadva, V., & Golombok, S. (2011). Secrecy, disclosure and everything in-between: Decisions of parents of children conceived by donor insemination, egg donation and surrogacy. Reproductive BioMedicine Online, 22(5), 485–495. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2011.01.014

  • Riaño-Galán, I., Martínez González, C., & Gallego Riestra, S. (2021). Ethical and legal questions of anonymity and confidentiality in gamete donation. Anales de Pediatría (English Edition), 94(5), 337.e1–337.e6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anpede.2021.02.004

  • Sauer, J. L. (2009). Competing interests and gamete donation: The case for anonymity. Seton Hall Law Review, 39(3), 919–954. https://scholarship.shu.edu/shlr/vol39/iss3/5

  • Symons, X., & Kha, H. (2024). An ethical examination of donor anonymity and a defence of a legal ban on anonymous donation and the establishment of a central register. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry, 21(1), 105–115. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-023-10265-4

  • Vanfraussen, K., Ponjaert-Kristoffersen, I., & Brewaeys, A. (2001). An attempt to reconstruct children’s donor concept: A comparison between children’s and lesbian parents’ attitudes towards donor anonymity. Human Reproduction, 16(9), 2019–2025. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/16.9.2019

  • Yee, S., Blyth, E., & Tsang, A. K. T. (2011). Views of donors and recipients regarding disclosure to children following altruistic known oocyte donation. Reproductive BioMedicine Online, 23(7), 851–859. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2011.06.003

Published
2025-10-10
How to Cite
Polyakova, I., Valeeva, M., Lebedeva, A., & Khramtsova, A. (2025). Donor Programs in Human Reproduction: Reviewing the Debate on Anonymity and Openness. Changing Societies & Personalities, 9(3), 848-862. doi:10.15826/csp.2025.9.3.356
Citation Formats
Issue
Vol. 9, No. 3 (2025)
Section
Research Notes