The long path to pregnancy: early experience with dual anonymous gamete donation in a European in vitro fertilisation referral centre

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>This investigation describes features of patients undergoing in vitro fertilisation (IVF) and embryo transfer (ET) where both gametes were obtained from anonymous donors.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Gamete unsuitability or loss was confirmed in both members of seven otherwise healthy couples presenting for reproductive endocrinology consultation over a 12-month interval in Ireland. IVF was undertaken with fresh oocytes provided by anonymous donors in Ukraine; frozen sperm (anonymous donor) was obtained from a licensed tissue establishment. For recipients, saline-enhanced sonography was used to assess intrauterine contour with endometrial preparation via transdermal estrogen.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Among commissioning couples, mean±SD female and male age was 41.9 ± 3.7 and 44.6 ± 3.5 yrs, respectively. During this period, female age for non dual anonymous gamete donation IVF patients was 37.9 ± 3 yrs (<it>p </it>< 0.001). Infertility duration was ≥3 yrs for couples enrolling in dual gamete donation, and each had ≥2 prior failed fertility treatments using native oocytes. All seven recipient couples proceeded to embryo transfer, although one patient had two transfers. Clinical pregnancy was achieved for 5/7 (71.4%) patients. Non-transferred cryopreserved embryos were available for all seven couples.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Mean age of females undergoing dual anonymous donor gamete donation with IVF is significantly higher than the background IVF patient population. Even when neither partner is able to contribute any gametes for IVF, the clinical pregnancy rate per transfer can be satisfactory if both anonymous egg and sperm donation are used concurrently. Our report emphasises the role of pre-treatment counselling in dual anonymous gamete donation, and presents a coordinated screening and treatment approach in IVF where this option may be contemplated.</p

An attempt to reconstruct children's donor concept: A comparison between children's and lesbian parents' attitudes towards donor anonymity

Background: This study investigated the donor concept of children who were born by means of donor insemination (DI), and their lesbian parents. Methods: A total of 41 children aged between 7 and 17 years, and 45 parents, took part in the follow-up study. In-depth topic interviews were used to reconstruct how DI children and their mothers perceived the donor. Data were collected about the birth story, about children's conversations with their mothers concerning donor characteristics and about children's and parents' attitudes towards the status of the donor. Results: 54% of these children preferred donor anonymity at this point in their life, whereas 46% wanted to know more about the donor. The majority of the latter group would have liked to know the donor's identity, with boys outnumbering girls. The remaining children of this group were content with non-identifying information. Children wanted to know more about the donors whereas the majority of the mothers preferred the donor to remain anonymous. Conclusions: Our results suggest that among DI children in general and among members of the same family, unit opinions differ on the status of the donor. A flexible system offering different types of donors seems to be necessary in order to meet the needs of each family.SCOPUS: ar.jinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishe

Anonymous or identity-registered sperm donors? A study of Dutch recipients&apos; choices

BACKGROUND: The aim of the present study was to gain insight into parents&apos; own donor preferences within a system offering the choice between an anonymous and identity-registered donor. A comparison was made between recipients choosing for an anonymous donor (AD choosers) and those choosing for an identifiable donor (ID choosers) with regard to their sexual orientation, demographic characteristics, disclosure issues and infertility distress. METHODS: Data from 105 couples (61% heterosexual, 39% lesbian) were registered on a standardized form during implication counselling sessions previous to treatment. RESULTS: Sixty-three per cent of the heterosexual couples and 98% of the lesbian couples had chosen an ID donor. Major differences between ID and AD choosers were identified. Among the ID choosers secrecy towards the child was no option, whereas 83% of the AD choosers did not intend to inform their child. Compared with heterosexual ID choosers, AD choosers were more distressed about their infertility and had a lower educational level. CONCLUSION: Legislation imposing ID donors appears to be acceptable for the majority of this study population. For a vulnerable group of heterosexual couples, who remained secretive about the use of a donor, adaptation to the new system is not self-evident