Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T01:21:08.833Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 1 - Accessing Origins Information

The Implications of Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing for Donor-Conceived People and Formal Regulation in the United Kingdom

from Part I - ‘DIY’ Donor Linking: Issues and Implications

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 July 2023

By
Damian Adams ,
Marilyn Crawshaw ,
Leah Gilman  and
Lucy Frith
Edited by
Fiona Kelly ,
Deborah Dempsey  and
Adrienne Byrt
Fiona Kelly
Affiliation:
La Trobe University, Victoria
Deborah Dempsey
Affiliation:
Swinburne University of Technology, Victoria
Adrienne Byrt
Affiliation:
Swinburne University of Technology, Victoria
Get access

Summary

Information on genetic relations, gamete donors and donor-related siblings, can now be located within two very different systems: ‘official’ regulatory systems; and emerging digital online systems, including direct-to-consumer genetic testing (DTCGT), ancestry sites and internet groups. The possibilities of finding genetic relatives through these online systems has risen dramatically in recent years, leading to claims that donor anonymity is dead regardless of which jurisdiction you live in. In this chapter, we explore how online systems have impacted on donor conception. We use UK examples to explore the social-cultural contexts, including the activism of donor-conceived people, which have shaped, and continue to shape, both systems. We consider the ethical, legal and social-emotional challenges for donor-conceived people in these new landscapes, especially in relation to their agency, as these different systems collide and interact, creating new spaces of sociality and challenges to existing power structures.

Keywords

DNA testingdonor conceived peoplegamete donorsdonor anonymitygeneticsregulationethicsonlinedigital technology
Type
Chapter
Information
Donor-Linked Families in the Digital Age
Relatedness and Regulation
 , pp. 15 - 32
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2023

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adams, D. (2021). Child Welfare Paramountcy: The Donor Conception Paradox. Bedford Park, South Australia: Flinders University.Google Scholar
Adams, D. H. (2013). Conceptualising a child-centric paradigm. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry, 10(3), 369–381. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-013-9454-7CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Adams, D., & Allan, S. (2013). Building a family tree: donor-conceived people, DNA tracing and donor ‘anonymity’. Australian Journal of Adoption, 7(2), 1–16.Google Scholar
Adams, D., & Lorbach, C. (2012). Accessing donor conception information in Australia: a call for retrospective access. Journal of Law and Medicine, 19(4), 707–721. PMID: 22908615.Google Scholar
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.Google ScholarPubMed
Allan, S. (2016). Donor Conception and the Search for Information: From Secrecy and Anonymity to Openness. Abingdon: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315568171Google Scholar
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.Google ScholarPubMed
Blyth, E., & Farrand, A. (2004). Anonymity in donor-assisted conception and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. The International Journal of Children’s Rights, 12, 89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blyth, E., & Frith, L. (2015). Access to genetic and biographical history in donor conception: an analysis of recent trends and future possibilities. In Horsey, K. (Ed.), Revisiting the Regulation of Human Fertilisation and Embryology (pp. 136–152). Abingdon: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bourne, K., Johnson, L., Anderson, C., & Hunter, E. (2018). Donor applications to the Victorian central register. In The ART of Caring Book of Abstracts (p. 63). Australia: Fertility Society of Australia.Google Scholar
Chicoine, S. (2020). The birth of fertility fraud: how to protect Washingtonians. Washington Law Review Online, 95, 168.Google Scholar
Cooke, M. (2019) Ohio family devastated by IVF terror. BioEdge (accessed 6 October 2021) www.bioedge.org/bioethics/ohio-family-devastated-by-ivf-error/13166.Google Scholar
Council of Europe (2019) Anonymous Donation of Sperm and Oocytes: Balancing the Rights of Parents, Donors and Children. Strasbourg: Parliamentary Assembly. http://assembly.coe.int/nw/xml/XRef/Xref-XML2HTML-EN.asp?fileid=27680Google Scholar
Crawshaw, M., & Dally, J. (2012). Producing sperm, egg and embryo donors’ pen portraits and other personal information for later use by donor offspring: an exploratory study of professional practices. Human Fertility, 15(2), 82–88. https://doi.org/10.3109/14647273.2012.68712CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Crawshaw, M., & Daniels, K. (2019). Revisiting the use of ‘counselling’ as a means of preparing prospective parents to meet the emerging psychosocial needs of families that have used gamete donation. Families, Relationships and Societies, 8(3), 395–409. https://doi.org/10.1332/204674318X15313158773308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crawshaw, M., Daniels, K., Adams, D., Bourne, K., van Hooff, J. A. P., Kramer, W., … & Thorn, P. (2015). Emerging models for facilitating contact between people genetically related through donor conception: a preliminary analysis and discussion. Reproductive Biomedicine & Society Online, 1(2), 71–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbms.2015.10.001CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Crawshaw, M., Frith, L., van den Akker, O., & Blyth, E. (2016). Voluntary DNA-based information exchange and contact services following donor conception: an analysis of service users’ needs. New Genetics and Society, 35(4), 372–392. https://doi.org/10.1080/14636778.2016.1253462.Google Scholar
Crawshaw, M. (2018). Direct-to-consumer DNA testing: the fallout for individuals and their families unexpectedly learning of their donor conception origins. Human Fertility, 21(4), 225–228. https://doi.org/10.1080/14647273.2017.1339127CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Daniels, K. R. (2004). Building a Family with the Assistance of Donor Insemination. Palmerston North, NZ: Dunmore Press.Google Scholar
Darroch, F. and Smith, I. (2021) Establishing identity: how direct-to-consumer genetic testing challenges the assumption of donor anonymity. Family Court Review, 59(1), 103–120.Google Scholar
Dingle, C. (2021). Brave New Humans – The Dirty Reality of Donor Conception. London: Hardie Grant Books.Google Scholar
Donovan, C. (2006). Genetics, fathers, and families: exploring the implications of changing the law in favour of identifying sperm donors. Social & Legal Studies, 15(4), 494–510. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0964663906069543CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finkler, K. (2000). The New Genetics: Family and Kinship on the Medical Frontier. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Fox, D., Cohen, I. G., & Adashi, E. Y. (2019). Fertility fraud, legal firsts, and medical ethics. Obstetrics & Gynecology, 134(5), 918–920. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000003516Google Scholar
Frith, L. (2001). Beneath the rhetoric: the role of rights in the practice of non‐anonymous gamete donation. Bioethics, 15(5–6), 473–484. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8519.00255.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Frith, L. (2001a). Gamete donation and anonymity: the ethical and legal debate. Human Reproduction, 16(5), 818–824. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/16.5.818CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Frith, L. (2015). The limits of evidence: evidence-based policy and the removal of gamete donor anonymity in the UK. Monash Bioethics Review, 33(1), 29–44. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40592-015-0017-zGoogle Scholar
Frith, L., Blyth, E., Crawshaw, M., & van den Akker, O. (2018). Secrets and disclosure in donor conception. Sociology of Health & Illness, 40(1), 188–203.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gilman, L., & Nordqvist, P. (2018). Organizing openness: how UK policy defines the significance of information and information sharing about gamete donation. International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family, 32(3), 316–333. https://doi.org/10.1093/lawfam/eby014.Google Scholar
Gollancz, D. (2020, 17 December) The right to establish identity: donor-offspring. UK Human Rights Blog. https://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2020/12/17/the-right-to-establish-identity-donor-offspring-david-gollancz/Google Scholar
Guardian, The. (2022, 20 May), UK fertility watchdog could recommend scrapping donor anonymity law. www.theguardian.com/society/2022/may/20/uk-fertility-watchdog-could-recommend-scrapping-donor-anonymity-lawGoogle Scholar
Guerrini, C. J., Robinson, J. O., Bloss, C. C., Brooks, W. B., Fullerton, S. M., Kirkpatrick, B., … & McGuire, A. L. (2022). Family secrets: experiences and outcomes of participating in direct-to-consumer genetic relative-finder services. The American Journal of Human Genetics, 109(3), 486–497.Google Scholar
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/dew06Google Scholar
Hertz, R., & Nelson, M. K. (2018). Random Families: Genetic Strangers, Sperm Donor Siblings, and the Creation of New Kin. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Huffman, C. S., & Smith, M. (2021, May 14). Dallas woman advocates expanding fertility fraud law. WFAA. www.wfaa.com/article/news/local/investigates/dallas-woman-eve-wiley-advocates-expanding-fertility-fraud-law/287-5ad8424f-ed1f-4b48-9f5c-b3df1ed6cbc4.)Google Scholar
Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. (2019). Code of Practice. https://portal.hfea.gov.uk/media/1605/2019-12-03-code-of-practice-december-2019.pdfGoogle Scholar
Indekeu, A., Bolt, S. H., & Maas, A. J. B. (2021). Meeting multiple same-donor offspring: psychosocial challenges. Human Fertility, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/14647273.2021.1872804Google ScholarPubMed
Indekeu, A., & Hens, K. (2019). Part of my story: the meaning and experiences of genes and genetics for sperm donor-conceived offspring. New Genetics and Society, 38(1), 18–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Isaksson, S., Sydsjö, G., Svanberg, A. S., & Lampic, C. (2019). Managing absence and presence of child–parent resemblance: a challenge for heterosexual couples following sperm donation. Reproductive Biomedicine & Society Online, 8, 38–46. https://doi.org/10.org/j.rbms.2019.07.001Google Scholar
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(1), 18.Google Scholar
ISOGG (2021, 28 September) DNA testing for the donor conceived. International Society for Genetic Genealogists Wiki. https://isogg.org/wiki/DNA_testing_for_the_donor_conceivedGoogle Scholar
Jadva, V., Freeman, T., Kramer, W., & Golombok, S. (2010). Experiences of offspring searching for and contacting their donor siblings and donor. Reproductive Biomedicine Online, 20(4), 523–532. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2010.01.001Google Scholar
Johns, R. (2013). Abolishing anonymity: a rights-based approach to evaluating anonymous sperm donation. UCLA Women’s Law Journal, 20, 111.Google Scholar
Kirkman-Brown, J, Calhaz-Jorge, C, Dancet, E, Lundin, K, Martins, M, … Frith, L. (2022). Good practice recommendations for information provision for those involved in reproductive donation. Human Reproduction Open, (1), https://doi.org/doi:10.1093/hropen/hoac001Google Scholar
Klotz, M. (2014). (K) Information: Gamete Donation and Kinship Knowledge in Germany and Britain (Vol. 32). Frankfurt: Campus Verlag.Google Scholar
Klotz, M. (2016). Wayward relations: novel searches of the donor-conceived for genetic kinship. Medical Anthropology, 35(1), 45–57. https://doi.org/10.1080/01459740.2015.1012615Google Scholar
Lippman, A. (1991). Prenatal genetic testing and screening: constructing needs and reinforcing inequities. American Journal of Law & Medicine, 17(1–2), 15–50. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0098858800007917Google Scholar
Londini, V. (2019). The open future of donor conception. BioNews. www.bionews.org.uk/page_143093Google Scholar
McGovern, P. G., & Schlaff, W. D. (2018). Sperm donor anonymity: a concept rendered obsolete by modern technology. Fertility and Sterility, 109(2), 230–231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2017.12.011CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moore, C. (2016). The history of genetic genealogy and unknown parentage research: An insider’s view. Journal of Genetic Genealogy, 8(1), 35–37.Google Scholar
O’Brien, M. (2021, 17 July) Who has the largest DNA database? Data Mining DNA. www.dataminingdna.com/who-has-the-largest-dna-database/Google Scholar
Odze, L. (2018) Surrogacy and risks of family secrets. In Cabeza, R., Flowers, V., Pierrot, E., Rao, A., O’Leary, B. and Odze, L (Eds.), Surrogacy: Law, Practice and Policy in England and Wales (pp. 133–160). Bristol: LexisNexis.Google Scholar
Ojomu, N. (2019, 13 January) Man’s horror as DNA test reveals he’s dating his half-sister. Yahoo!Lifestyle. https://au.lifestyle.yahoo.com/mans-horror-dna-test-reveals-hes-dating-half-sister-044310902.htmlGoogle Scholar
Pennings, G. (2019). Genetic databases and the future of donor anonymity. Human Reproduction, 34(5), 786–790.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Peterson, P. (2019, 26 June). He found out he had 32 siblings. For The Times magazine, he took their pictures. The New York Times. www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/06/26/magazine/sperm-donor-siblings.htmlGoogle Scholar
Ravelingien, A., & Pennings, G. (2013). The right to know your genetic parents: from open-identity gamete donation to routine paternity testing. The American Journal of Bioethics, 13(5), 33–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2013.776128.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ravitsky, V. (2017). The right to know one’s genetic origins and cross-border medically assisted reproduction. Israel Journal of Health Policy Research, 6(1), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13584-016-0125-0Google Scholar
Sforza, T. (2007). Fertility fraud settlements cost millions. The Orange County Register, 26 June.Google Scholar
Shapiro, D. (2019). Inheritance: A Memoir of Genealogy, Paternity, and Love. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.Google Scholar
Sharak, S. (2020). Richards v. Kiken and the legal implications of fertility fraud. American Journal of Law & Medicine, 46(4), 528–535.Google Scholar
Smart, C. (2011). Families, secrets and memories. Sociology, 45(4), 539–553. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0038038511406585CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strathern, M. (1999). Refusing information. In Strathern, M. (Ed.), Property, Substance, and Effect: Anthropological Essays on Persons and Things (pp. 64–86). London: Athlone Press.Google Scholar
Tobin, J. W. (2012). Donor conceived individuals and access to information about their genetic origins: the relevance and role of rights. Journal of Law and Medicine, 19(4), 742–757.Google Scholar
Tallandini, M. A., Zanchettin, L., Gronchi, G., & Morsan, V. (2016). Parental disclosure of assisted reproductive technology (ART) conception to their children: a systematic and meta-analytic review. Human Reproduction, 31(6), 1275–1287.Google Scholar
van den Akker, O. (2010). Nature and nurture: what do theory and research tell us. In Crawshaw, M. and Balen, R. (Eds.), Adopting after Infertility: Messages from Practice, Research, and Personal Experience (pp. 164–179). London: Kingsley Publishers.Google Scholar
WADC. (2017) We are donor conceived 2017 survey results. We Are Donor Conceived. www.wearedonorconceived.com/uncategorized/survey-results/Google Scholar
WADC. (2020) We are donor conceived survey report. We Are Donor Conceived. www.wearedonorconceived.com/2020-survey-top/2020-we-are-donor-conceived-survey/Google Scholar
Weiner, K., Martin, P., Richards, M., & Tutton, R. (2017). Have we seen the geneticisation of society? Expectations and evidence. Sociology of Health & Illness, 39(7), 989–1004. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9566.12551.Google Scholar
Wincott, E., & Crawshaw, M. (2006). From a social issue to policy: social work’s advocacy for the rights of donor conceived people to genetic origins information in the United Kingdom. Social Work in Health Care, 43(2–3), 53–72. DOI: 10.1300/J010v43n02_05Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×