Using the theory of planned behavior to predict parents' disclosure of donor conception to their children: a longitudinal study.

STUDY QUESTION: Can the application of the theory of planned behavior (TPB) help predict heterosexual parents' disclosure of donor conception to their children? SUMMARY ANSWER: Parents with a stronger will to act in accordance with social norms favoring disclosure were more likely to start the disclosure process within the next 5-9 years. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: In contrast to single mothers by choice and same-sex couples, heterosexual couples need to make an active decision to disclose their use of donor conception to their child. While disclosure at an early age is encouraged by international guidelines, many heterosexual-couple parents struggle with this. A previous study has found an association between parental scores of TPB factors and disclosure intention, but so far, no study has applied the TPB to predict parents' disclosure behavior. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: The present study is based on the fourth and fifth waves of data collection (T4 and T5) in a nation-wide longitudinal study. Participating parents had conceived through identity-release oocyte donation (n = 68, response rate 65%) and sperm donation (n = 62, response rate 56%) as part of a heterosexual couple. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: The present study is part of the prospective longitudinal Swedish Study on Gamete Donation (SSGD). Consecutive recruitment of couples starting oocyte or sperm donation treatment was conducted at all seven fertility clinics providing gamete donation in Sweden during a 3-year period (2005-2008). Participants were requested to complete postal surveys at five time points. The present study includes heterosexual-couple parents following oocyte or sperm donation who participated at the two latest time points when their children were 7-8 years old (T4), and 13-17 years old (T5). At T4, participants completed the study-specific TPB Disclosure Questionnaire (TPB-DQ) measuring attitudes and intentions to disclose the donor conception to the child, and disclosure behavior was assessed at both T4 and T5. Data from those participants who had not yet disclosed at T4 were analyzed using survival analysis with Cox regressions. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Forty participants had not disclosed the donor conception to their children at T4 and, out of these, 13 had still not disclosed at T5. We found a significant association between scores of the TPB factor Subjective norms at T4 and their subsequent disclosure behavior at T5 (HR = 2.019; 95% CI: 1.36-3.01). None of the other factors were significantly associated with disclosure behavior. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: The present study concerns heterosexual-couple parents with children conceived following treatment with gametes from open-identity donors, which limits the generalizability of our findings to other groups and contexts. Other limitations include the risk of systematic attrition due to the longitudinal study design and decreased statistical power due to few participants. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Our findings highlight the importance of perceived subjective norms for parents' disclosure behavior and indicate that the co-parent's opinion about disclosure is of particular relevance in this regard. Counselors should focus on supporting prospective parents to initiate and maintain a healthy and open dialogue about concerns around building a family with donor conception. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): The study was funded by the Swedish Research Council. The authors have no competing interests to declare. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: N/A.

Shifting to a model of donor conception that entails a communication agreement among the parents, donor, and offspring.

BACKGROUND: Some persons conceived with donor gametes react negatively when they found their birth via donor conception. They request access to information about and seek to communicate with the donor. However, some countries mandate donor anonymity. Other countries allow donor-conceived persons to access donor information, but they can only use this access if their parents have disclosed donor conception to them. We investigated a thorny issue of donor conception: whether donor conception should be shifted from an anonymous basis to a non-anonymous basis. METHODS: We review the issues and concerns regarding donor conception. We then consider the impact of direct-to-consumer genetic testing on donor conception, as well as the influence of donor conception on offspring's identity and the potential of different types of donors. To discuss the future policy of donor conception, the policies on the anonymity of gamete donors were investigated using publicly-available documents in 15 countries. RESULTS: The aim of mandating donor anonymity is to protect the privacy of the donor and intended parents. However, the diffusion of direct-to-consumer genetic testing may make it impossible to maintain anonymity. Birth via donor conception shapes the offspring's identity, and the donor may further influence the development of offspring's identity through communications. It remains important to disclose donor conception to donor-conceived offspring and to provide them with donor information. However, that information might be insufficient for some donor-conceived persons. Here are benefits to having open-identity donors and known donors. Such donors can make an agreement with the parents regarding future communication with the offspring, although both sides should respect privacy. Subsequent counseling for all parties involved can result in better tripartite communication agreements. CONCLUSIONS: In sum, ethical and practical issues that complicate donor anonymity are driving a shift to non-anonymous donor conception, in which all parties come to a communication agreement. To pave the way for such a donor conception system, transitional measures can be put into place. For countries that already adopted non-anonymous donor conception, ensuring the communication agreements is important to protect the rights of parents, donor, and offspring.

Meeting multiple same-donor offspring: psychosocial challenges.

Debates regarding donor-conceived people's rights to genetic information have caused some jurisdictions to abolish donor anonymity. Moreover, voluntary services have been established whose primary focus is providing possibilities to find information about the donor. A less discussed consequence is that donor-conceived people also find information about donor half-siblings: people conceived through the same donor. In the recent climate of openness and online DNA tests, there is an increased chance of finding multiple donor half-siblings. This study explored how donor-conceived people experience meeting multiple same-donor offspring in a group setting. Second, the study investigated donor-conceived people's need for support when meeting multiple donor half-siblings. A qualitative approach was used. Nineteen donor-conceived offspring who participated in donor half-sibling network meetings were interviewed. Using a grounded theory approach three themes were identified regarding group aspects: (i) defining group membership; (ii) regulating closeness and distance; and (iii) managing group dynamics. Professional support needs in relation to these themes were also analysed. While establishing relationships between donor half-siblings are viewed as generally more beneficial than connecting with a donor, this study showed that these new relationships also come with their challenges, and counselling may need to be refined towards a more specific same donor-offspring relationships' framework.

National survey of donor-conceived individuals who requested information about their sperm donor-experiences from 17 years of identity releases in Sweden.

STUDY QUESTION: What characterizes the group of donor-conceived (DC) individuals who request information about their identity-release sperm donor in Sweden, and what are their experiences of disclosure, information receipt and donor contact? SUMMARY ANSWER: Following three decades of identity-release donation in Sweden, few DC individuals have requested donor information with varying experiences of information receipt and donor contact. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: In 1985, Sweden was the first country worldwide to enact legislation that gave DC individuals the right to obtain identifying information about their donor. Since then, identity-release gamete donation has become available in many countries but there is limited knowledge about the individuals who request donor information. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: A nation-wide cross-sectional survey study was performed at all seven University hospitals that provided donation treatment in Sweden during 1985-2002. During this period only donor insemination to heterosexual couples was permitted. Inclusion criteria were being 18 years of age or older, conceived with donor sperm and having requested information about the donor by December 2020. Recruitment was performed during 2016-2020. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: A total of 60 individuals had requested information about their donor. Of these, 53 were approached and 40 individuals, representing 34 families, accepted study participation (75% response rate). Participants completed a postal survey with the WHO-10 well-being index and study-specific questions about experiences of disclosure, motivations for requesting donor information, receipt of information, as well as intentions and experiences of donor contact. Independent t-test and chi-square tests were used to compare ratings of participants with early and late disclosure. MAIN RESULTS AND ROLE OF CHANCE: Of ∼900 DC individuals who had reached adult age, a total of 60 (≈7%) had requested information about the donor. Most of the 40 study participants (78%) made their requests within 2 years after reaching 18 years of age, or following disclosure at later ages (up to 32 years). Several participants had adult DC siblings in the family who had not requested any donor information. All except five participants received identifying information about the donor from the clinic. However, some donors had died or lacked contact information. Among those participants who were able to contact their donor, 41% had done so at the time of the study, while a third of the participants were unsure about potential contact. Several had met the donor in person and a few were in regular contact. About half of the participants had been informed about their donor conception in adolescence or adulthood (age 12-32), and there were significant differences between participants based on age at disclosure. Compared to those with early disclosure, participants with late disclosure were significantly more likely to be dissatisfied with the timing of their disclosure (P = 0.021), to react with negative emotions (P < 0.001), and to subsequently contact the donor (P = 0.047). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: The limited population available for inclusion resulted in a small sample size, despite a high response rate. In addition, men's lower participation rate must be taken into consideration when interpreting the results. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: The small number of individuals requesting information about their identity-release sperm donor is surprising. While not all DC individuals appear to be interested in donor information, it is reasonable to assume that some are unaware of their donor conception and thus unable to make informed decisions regarding their genetic origins. During the coming years, young women and men in many countries will become eligible to access identifying information about their donor. In order to meet the needs of these individuals, and to support positive outcomes for all involved parties, it is essential that adequate protocols and resources are developed. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST: Financial support from The Swedish Research Council. There are no conflicts of interest to declare. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: N/A.

The dangers of being a sperm donor.

This article argues that that there are two important reasons why many potential donors refrain from donating and why many donors value not being outed as a sperm donor. The first reason is the stigma attached to sperm donation. The second is the attribution of fatherhood to the donor. Attributional fatherhood is based on the rejection of the basic rule underlying the practice of sperm donation, i.e. the donor is not the father of the offspring. Attributional fatherhood ascribes the status of father exclusively on the basis of the genetic connection between the donor and the offspring. The violation of the 'responsible father' rule generates moral blame and may result in conflicts, disapproval and rejection. The presence of this view in different groups is demonstrated. Possible solutions for this issue are briefly presented. Given the geneticization of relationships in society in general, this phenomenon may increase in the future, thus putting pressure on the practice of sperm donation.

The motivations of donor-conceived adults for seeking information about, and contact with, sperm donors.

RESEARCH QUESTION: How do the demographic characteristics, mental health experiences and disclosure experiences of donor-conceived adults shape motivations for seeking information about their sperm donors, contact with them, or both? DESIGN: Sixty-nine Australian adults who conceived through sperm donors completed an online survey. Uniquely, information and contact seeking were investigated as two distinct concepts. RESULTS: Participants reported a variety of demographic, mental health, disclosure and discovery experiences. Most had been motivated to seek information about their donor (88%), contact with them (71%), or both. The most commonly reported motivations for each act were for medical information, expanding their identity and curiosity. Logistic regression findings were significant for wanting medical information as a motivation for seeking donor information (P = 0.03). Endorsement of this motivation was associated with self-reported anxiety (P = 0.02) and less likely as participant age increased (P = 0.02). Motivation to contact donors for medical information was associated with self-reported anxiety (P = 0.02) and depression (P = 0.01), and more likely when the participant was raised in a household that included the recipient co-parent (P = 0.04). As years since disclosure or discovery increased, participants were less likely to report wanting medical information as a motivation (P = 0.02). CONCLUSION: Overall, participants were motivated to obtain information and seek contact with sperm donors. Motivations for each were similar despite participants varying in age and reporting a range of circumstances regarding disclosure, some of which were adverse.

The stability of psychological adjustment among donor-conceived offspring in the U.S. National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study from childhood to adulthood: differences by donor type.

OBJECTIVE: To study differences by sperm donor type in the psychological adjustment of the U.S. National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study (NLLFS) offspring across three time periods from childhood to adulthood. DESIGN: U.S.-based prospective cohort study. SETTING: Paper-and-pencil questionnaires and protected online surveys. PATIENT(S): A cohort of 74 offspring conceived by lesbian parents using an anonymous (n = 26), a known (n = 26), or an open-identity (n = 22) sperm donor. Data were reported when offspring were ages 10 (wave 4), 17 (wave 5), and 25 (wave 6). INTERVENTION(S): None. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Achenbach Child Behavior Checklist administered to lesbian parents when offspring were ages 10 and 17 and the Achenbach Adult Self-Report administered to offspring at age 25. RESULT(S): In both relative and absolute stability, no differences were found in internalizing, externalizing, and total problem behaviors by donor type over 15 years. However, both externalizing and total problem behaviors significantly declined from age 10 to 17 and then increased from age 17 to 25. Irrespective of donor type, among the 74 offspring, the large majority scored continuously within the normal range on internalizing (n = 62, 83.8%), externalizing (n = 62, 83.8%), and total problem behaviors (n = 60, 81.1%). CONCLUSION(S): The results reassure prospective lesbian parents and provide policy makers and reproductive medicine practitioners with empirical evidence that psychological adjustment in offspring raised by lesbian parents is unrelated to donor type in the long term.

Adult offspring of lesbian parents: How do they relate to their sperm donors?

OBJECTIVE: To study how adult offspring in planned lesbian-parent families relate to their unknown or known donors. DESIGN: Qualitative analyses of the sixth wave of online surveys from a longitudinal study of adult offspring in planned lesbian families, enrolled at conception. SETTING: Community-based United States national study. PATIENT(S): The 76 participants were 25-year-old donor insemination (DI) offspring whose lesbian parent(s) enrolled in a prospective longitudinal study when these offspring were conceived. INTERVENTION(S): None. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Offspring were asked about donor type, feelings about permanently unknown donor, satisfaction with and role of known donor, whether relationship with known donor was ongoing, and age of meeting open-identity donor. RESULT(S): This cohort (n = 76) of DI offspring with lesbian parents was among the first generation to reach adulthood. Thirty participants had permanently unknown donors and most participants felt comfortable about not knowing them. Sixteen participants had open-identity donors they had not met. Thirty had currently known donors-met in childhood (n = 22) or after open-identity donor disclosure (n = 8)-of whom two thirds had ongoing relationships with donors, half considered their donors as acquaintances, and nearly half had good feelings about their relationship, although a minority expressed conflicted feelings. CONCLUSION(S): This study of adult DI offspring from planned lesbian families shows that those who knew their donors mainly felt positively about these relationships. Qualitative analyses offered insight into offspring-donor relationships, whose numbers are increasing due to historical and demographic trends.

Donor insemination disclosure in social networks: heterosexual couples' experiences.

The way in which heterosexual couples manage information about infertility and donor insemination within their social networks has not yet been explored in-depth. This study focuses on how parents and aspiring parents manage information about infertility and donor insemination within their social networks. Fifteen Belgian couples were interviewed as part of a parenthood research project. Thematic analysis resulted in the identification of four themes. The first of these reveals how the social context can best be understood as a continuous confrontation with social expectations. A second theme highlights the diverse ways in which couples manage personal information in this confronting context. The third theme stresses how couples manage information about donor insemination so as to be treated as a 'normal' family. The final theme shows how emotional regulation within the context of the extended family plays a role in couples' decisions about how to manage information with relatives. Results are analysed using the concept of 'systemic emotion management' and the importance of being seen by others as a 'normal' family. Study findings signal the importance of managing information within social networks and are of relevance to a range of practitioners.

Psychosocial counselling for intended parents who opt for donor sperm treatment: which topics do they find relevant?

Objective: This study aimed to explore which topics intended parents who opt for donor sperm treatment find relevant to discuss in psychosocial counselling. Background: The choice for donor sperm treatment has psychosocial implications for intended parents and therefore psychosocial counselling is advised as an integral part of DST. To date, little is known about which topics intended parents find relevant to discuss in psychosocial counselling. Methods: We conducted 25 semi-structured in-depth interviews between 2015 and 2017 with heterosexual men and women, lesbian women and single women who opted for donor sperm treatment and had a counselling session as part of their intake. They were recruited through three Dutch fertility centres, three network organisations and by snowball sampling. Results: Intended parents found it relevant to discuss the following seven topics in psychosocial counselling: the decision to opt for donor sperm treatment, choosing a sperm donor, coping with questions from family and friends, non-genetic parenthood, single motherhood, openness and disclosure, and future contact between the child and half-siblings. Conclusion: We recommend that counsellors take a more active role in bringing up the topics found in our study and that a clear distinction is made between counselling with the aim to screen intended parents and counselling with the aim to offer guidance.

Psychological well-being of identity-release egg donation parents with infants.

STUDY QUESTION: What are the psychological health, relationship quality and perceived social support outcomes of heterosexual couples who have conceived an infant through identity-release egg donation? SUMMARY ANSWER: Parents' scores on all measures were within the normal range. Egg donation mothers had poorer perceived social support, and egg donation fathers had less optimal psychological health than a comparison group of IVF parents, although these differences were associated with the older age of egg donation parents, rather than being an effect of family type. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: There is limited understanding of the psychological health and couple relationship quality of egg donation parents, and no empirical data on parents' social support, during the first year of parenthood. No studies have included families who have used an identity-release egg donor. The study offers the first examination of the psychological well-being of identity-release egg donation parents. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: This study included 57 families created through identity-release egg donation, and a comparison group of 56 families who had used IVF with their own gametes, recruited through UK fertility clinics. Families were visited at home between October 2013 and June 2015. The sample forms part of a larger study examining family functioning in families created following fertility treatment. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHOD: All families were heterosexual two-parent families with an infant aged 6-18 months. Mothers and fathers were administered standardised questionnaires assessing psychological health (Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale, Trait Anxiety Inventory and Parenting Stress Index-short form), couple relationship quality (Golombok Rust Inventory of Marital State) and perceived social support (Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support). MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Scores from the egg donation and IVF parents were within the normal range on all measures. Significant differences were found between the groups indicating less optimal social support in egg donation mothers compared to IVF mothers, and poorer psychological health in egg donation fathers compared to IVF fathers. These differences appeared to be related to the older age of egg donation parents or to twin parenthood, rather than to egg donation per se. No differences were found between the groups in the parents' relationship quality. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: It is possible that families who were managing the transition to parenthood less well may have been less likely to participate in research. Fewer IVF than egg donation fathers participated in the study, so the statistical power was lower for comparisons between fathers. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: The findings are of relevance to UK clinics offering identity-release egg donation. That scores of egg donation parents on measures of psychological well-being were more similar than different to those of IVF parents should prove reassuring to individuals considering this treatment type. As less optimal outcomes were found for egg donation parents on several measures, and these were associated with parental age rather than conception type, it is recommended that clinics discuss with older patients how they may establish a social support network and signpost patients to appropriate post-natal support. STUDY FUNDING, COMPETING INTERESTS: This research was supported by a Wellcome Trust Senior Investigator Award [097857/Z/11/Z] and a CHESS-ESRC studentship. The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: N/A.

Being a donor-child: wishes for parental support, peer support and counseling.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed at exploring the wishes of Dutch donor-conceived offspring for parental support, peer support and counseling and sought to contribute to the improvement of health care for all parties involved with assisted reproductive technologies. METHODS: We held semi-structured in-depth interviews with 24 donor-conceived offspring (Mage = 26.9, range 17-41) born within father-mother, two-mother and single mother families. The majority of the donor offspring was conceived with semen of anonymous donors. All offspring were recruited by network organizations and snowball sampling. The interviews were fully transcribed and analyzed using the constant comparative method. RESULTS: Donor-conceived offspring wished that their parents had talked openly about donor conception and had missed parental support. They wished that their parents would have received counseling before donor sperm treatment on how to talk with their children about donor conception in several stages of life. They valued the availability of peer contact to exchange stories with other donor-conceived offspring and would have liked assistance in getting access to trustworthy information about characteristics and identifying information of their donor. Donor-conceived offspring wished to know where to find specialist counseling when needed. CONCLUSIONS: Peer support and counseling by professionals for donor-conceived offspring should be available for those who need it. The findings also support professional counseling for intended parents before treatment to improve parental support for donor-children.

Mater semper certa est: motherhood is always certain.

The development of oocyte donation has led to a reexamination of the facets of motherhood: the genetic, gestational, and psychosocial contributions. In addition, the practice of oocyte donation has prompted a consideration of the unique psychosocial and legal aspects of this form of family building. In this section of Views and Reviews a summary and discussion of the long-term psychosocial adjustment of oocyte donor-conceived children and their parents is presented. Next, the current permeability around donor anonymity is investigated and questions regarding whether donor anonymity can still exist is discussed. Third, the evolution of oocyte cryopreservation and banking is reviewed and the future of oocyte banking is explored. Finally, as oocyte donation continues to grow and evolve, so too does the legal landscape in which it is practiced. Seminal legal cases are presented to describe the legal landscape that has shaped the practice of oocyte donation.

Long-term outcomes of children conceived through egg donation and their parents: a review of the literature.

This review examines the literature on the long-term outcomes for children and parents in families created through egg donation, focusing on child psychological adjustment, parental psychological health, and parent-child relationship quality. Where possible, outcomes were examined according to family disclosure status (i.e., whether or not the parents intended to tell/had told the child about their method of conception). The small body of empirical literature indicates that children and parents function well throughout childhood and into early adolescence, although there appear to be subtle differences in mother-child relationship quality. None of the differences found in relationship quality indicate problems in the mother-child relationship and instead reflect differences within the normal range.

Attitudes of sperm, egg and embryo donors and recipients towards genetic information and screening of donors.

BACKGROUND: Gamete and embryo donors undergo genetic screening procedures in order to maximise the health of donor-conceived offspring. In the era of genomic medicine, expanded genetic screening may be offered to donors for the purpose of avoiding transmission of harmful genetic mutations. The objective of this study was to explore the attitudes of donors and recipients toward the expanded genetic screening of donors. METHODS: Qualitative interview study with thematic analysis, undertaken in a tertiary fertility centre. Semi-structured in-depth qualitative interviews were conducted with eleven recipients and nine donors from three different cohorts (sperm, egg and embryo donors/recipients). RESULTS: Donors and recipients acknowledged the importance of genetic information and were comfortable with the existing level of genetic screening of donors. Recipients recognised some potential benefits of expanded genetic screening of donors; however both recipients and donors were apprehensive about extended genomic technologies, with concerns about how this information would be used and the ethics of genetic selectivity. CONCLUSION: Participants in donor programs support some level of genetic screening of donors, but are wary of expanding genetic screening beyond current levels.

Motivations and attitudes of candidate sperm donors in Belgium.

OBJECTIVE: To study the motivation and attitudes of a candidate sperm donor population in Belgium. DESIGN: Anonymous survey. SETTING: Tertiary referral infertility center. PATIENT(S): One hundred candidate sperm donors applying to the center for a first semen analysis between April 2013 and March 2016. INTERVENTION(S): Invitation to complete an anonymous questionnaire. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Demographic characteristics, recruitment methods, motivations and attitudes toward payment, donor anonymity, disclosure to offspring, donation to lesbian couples and single women, views on the donor children and social aspects of sperm donation. RESULT(S): The majority of our candidate donor population were older men with a partner who were donating sperm for altruistic reasons. The financial compensation was only an important motivational factor in 31% of the candidate sperm donors. Eighty-two percent of the men said they were willing to reveal nonidentifying information about themselves to donor offspring, but only 26% were willing to donate nonanonymously. The wish to receive certain information about the recipient family and the donor offspring was linked to men who had a partner and a child of their own. CONCLUSION(S): The wish to receive and donate information depends on the characteristics and beliefs of the candidate donors. Also, the donor's characteristics were linked to the acceptance of meeting the offspring in the future: the donors with a partner and donors who said they would donate without financial reimbursement were less willing to meet the donor offspring.

Disclosure of donor conception, age of disclosure and the well-being of donor offspring.

The matter of disclosure of donor conception to donor offspring is a very contentious issue. A frequently mentioned argument is that disclosure is in the best interest of the child. The objectives of this paper are 2-fold: first, to find out whether there are any measureable, stable differences in the psychological well-being of donor offspring who are informed of the mode of their conception compared to those who are not, and second, to find out what is being done with the evidence. We found that there exists no empirical evidence of differences in psychological well-being of donor offspring in disclosing or nondisclosing families. Regarding the age of disclosure, the findings are inconclusive. Some studies indicate no difference and some show slight positive effects of early disclosure. We also found that authors tend to ignore their own findings when formulating recommendations and that the recommendations are based on implicit moral premises. We conclude that disclosure, and directive counseling towards disclosure, cannot be justified by the welfare of the donor offspring.

Children's thoughts and feelings about their donor and security of attachment to their solo mothers in middle childhood.

Study question: What is the relationship between children's thoughts and feelings about their donor and their security of attachment to their solo mothers in middle childhood? Summary answer: Children with higher levels of secure-autonomous attachment to their mothers were more likely to have positive perceptions of the donor, and those with higher levels of insecure-disorganized attachment to their mothers were more likely to perceive him negatively. What is known already: There is limited understanding of the factors that contribute to children's thoughts and feelings about their donor in solo mother families. In adolescence, an association was found between adolescents' curiosity about donor conception and their security of attachment to their mothers. Study design size, duration: 19 children were administered the Friends and Family Interview and Donor Conception Interview between December 2015 and March 2016 as part of the second phase of a longitudinal, multi-method, multi-informant study of solo mother families. Participants/materials setting methods: All children were aged between 7 and 13 years and had been conceived by donor insemination to solo mothers. Interviews were conducted in participants' homes. The Friends and Family Interview was rated according to a standardized coding scheme designed to measure security of attachment in terms of secure-autonomous, insecure-dismissing, insecure-preoccupied and insecure-disorganized attachment patterns. Quantitative analyses of the Donor Conception Interview yielded two factors: interest in the donor and perceptions of the donor. Qualitative analyses of the Donor Conception Interview were conducted using qualitative content analysis and thematic analysis. Main results and the role of chance: Statistically significant associations were found between the perception of the donor scale and the secure-autonomous and insecure-disorganized attachment ratings. Children with higher levels of secure-autonomous attachment to their mothers were more likely to have positive perceptions of the donor (r = 0.549, P = 0.015), and those with higher levels of insecure-disorganized attachment to their mothers were more likely to perceive him negatively (r = -0.632, P = 0.004). Children's narratives about the donor depicted him as a stranger (n = 8), a biological father (n = 4), a social parent (n = 3), or in ambivalent terms (n = 4). Limitations, reasons for caution: Findings are limited by the wide age range of children within a small overall sample size. Participants were those willing and able to take part in research on donor conception families. The statistical significance of correlation coefficients was not corrected for multiple comparisons. Wider implications of the findings: Findings highlight the importance of situating children's ideas about the donor within family contexts. It is recommended that those working with donor conception families consider this when advising parents about whether, what and how to tell children about donor conception. Study funding/competing interest(s): This study was funded by the Wellcome Trust [097857/Z/11/Z]. The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Donor Conception and "Passing," or; Why Australian Parents of Donor-Conceived Children Want Donors Who Look Like Them.

This article explores the processes through which Australian recipients select unknown donors for use in assisted reproductive technologies and speculates on how those processes may affect the future life of the donor-conceived person. I will suggest that trust is an integral part of the exchange between donors, recipients, and gamete agencies in donor conception and heavily informs concepts of relatedness, race, ethnicity, kinship, class, and visibility. The decision to be transparent (or not) about a child's genetic parentage affects recipient parents' choices of donor, about who is allowed to "know" children's genetic backgrounds, and how important it is to be able to "pass" as an unassisted conception. In this way, recipients must trust the process, institutions, and individuals involved in their treatment, as well as place trust in the future they imagine for their child. The current market for donor gametes reproduces normative conceptions of the nuclear family, kinship, and relatedness by facilitating "matching" donors to recipients by phenotype and cultural affinities. Recipient parents who choose not to prioritize "matching," and actively disclose the process of children's conceptions, may embark on a project of queering heteronormative family structures and place great trust in both their own children and changing social attitudes to reduce stigma and generate acceptance for non-traditional families.