Family communication about donor conception : a qualitative study with lesbian parents

In this qualitative study of 10 lesbian couples who built their families through anonymous donor conception, we explore how lesbian parents experience communication about the donor conception within the family. While for these families disclosure of donor conception is often seen as evident, the way parents and children discuss this subject and how this is experienced by the parents themselves has not received much research attention. To meet this gap in the literature, in-depth interviews with lesbian couples were conducted. An Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis showed that this family communication process can be understood within the broader relational context of parent-child relationships. Even though parents handled this family communication in many different ways, these were all inspired by the same motives: acting in the child's best interest andon a more implicit levelmaintaining good relations within the family. Furthermore, parents left the initiative for talking about the DC mostly to the child. Overall, parents aimed at constructing a donor conception narrative that they considered acceptable for both the children and themselves. They used different strategies, such as gradual disclosure, limiting the meaning of the donor, and justifying the donor conception. Building an acceptable donor conception narrative was sometimes challenged by influences from the social environment. In the discussion, we relate this qualitative systemic study to the broader issues of selective disclosure and bidirectionality within families

Sister-to-sister oocyte donation: couples’ experiences with regard to genetic ties

Objective: This study aimed to gain an in-depth understanding of the experiences of genetic ties in intrafamily oocyte donation families. Background: Previous research has shown that most mothers have a good and stable relationship with their donor. Little is known about the meaning of the difference in genetic ties for parents who conceived through sister-to-sister oocyte donation. Methods: An Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis was performed and focused on both individual experiences and couple experiences with regard to genetic ties. Ten participants were recruited via an infertility clinic and took part in semistructured couple interviews. Results: Our analysis revealed that the donation was seen as a way to equal genetic parenthood. Participants struggled with this prevailing ideal of genetic parenthood and questioned the legitimacy of their motherhood. Several dynamics were identified when couples tried to deal with the imbalance in genetic ties: they acknowledged each other, convinced one another, or pushed away the difference in genetic ties. Couples also managed the presence of a genetic tie with the donor by negotiating the closeness in their family relationships. Conclusion: The lack of a full genetic tie remained a meaningful absence for some mothers and the way couples dealt with this varied. We plead that the option of post-donation care should be offered to support couples with the complexities they try to deal with

Lesbian couples' views about and experiences of not being able to choose their sperm donor

In this qualitative study, we explore how lesbian recipients view and experience the selection of their anonymous sperm donor. The study was conducted in Belgium, where fertility centres follow a legal protocol that severely restricts personal choice in donor selection. While previous studies have shown that recipients want greater control and input in the selection of their sperm donor, this was not a main concern for most women in the present study. They generally acknowledged their lack of control on the selection outcome and accepted this as part and parcel of an anonymous donation policy that provides an opportunity to have a child. They actively and passively downplayed initial concerns about the donor selection procedure and felt they did not have or need a right to further control over the donor selection. In adopting this 'subordinate' position, they felt they should trust the hospital, which they hoped would fulfil rather high screening standards. Those who did want more choice were nuanced and careful about their motivations: they focused on selecting traits that would facilitate normal child development or increase family coherence. The findings shed light on how these patients perceive their position in this third-party reproduction setting

Beyond sperm cells: a qualitative study on constructed meanings of the sperm donor in lesbian families

Study question: What meanings do lesbian couples construct regarding their sperm donor? Summary answer: Forsome parents, the donor was increasingly presented as a person, whereas for other parents, the donor was seen as an instrument from the moment they received the sperm donation. What is known already: Few studies specifically focus on how lesbian couples deal with the issue of third-party anonymous gamete donation. It is often assumed that they have fewer difficulties than heterosexual couples with the involvement of a male procreator, since their status as a donor conception family is ‘socially visible’ and there is no social father who fears exclusion. Study design, size, duration: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 10 lesbian couples (20 participants), recruited via the Ghent University Hospital. All couples had at least one child, conceived through anonymous donor insemination, between 7 and 10 years old. Participants/materials, setting, methods: Within the data corpus, a particular data set was analyzed where couples referred to their donor and his position in their family. Step-by-step inductive thematic analysiswas performed resulting in themes that are grounded in the data. All phases of the analysis were followed by team discussion. Main results and the role of chance: This study reveals different donor constructs, indicating different ways of dealing with the third-party involvement in the family. Some parents diminish the role of the donor throughout family life and continue to present him as an instrument: something they needed in order to become parents. Others showan increasing interest in the donor as the children mature, which results in a more personalized account of the donor. Limitations, reasons for caution: In our qualitative cross-sectional study, we collected retrospectively constructed stories. Longitudinal qualitative and quantitative research is required to allow for an extrapolation of the conclusions made. Wider implications of the findings: This study shows how the concept of the donor is constructed within lesbian families and howit is challenged by the child’s developing personality and features.Whencounseling prospective parents, it could therefore be useful to discuss the concept of the anonymous donor beyond the conception phase. Study funding/competing interest(s): The project was funded by the Research Fund of Ghent University, Belgium. There are no competing interests