Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Donor Conception Disclosure: Directive or Non-Directive Counselling?

  • Original Research
  • Published:
Journal of Bioethical Inquiry Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

It is widely agreed among health professionals that couples using donor insemination should be offered counselling on the topic of donor conception disclosure. However, it is clear from the literature that there has long been a lack of agreement about which counselling approach should be used in this case: a directive or a non-directive approach. In this paper we investigate which approach is ethically justifiable by balancing the two underlying principles of autonomy (non-directive approach) and beneficence (directive approach). To overrule one principle in favour of another, six conditions should be fulfilled. We analyse the arguments in favour of the beneficence principle, and consequently, a directive approach. This analysis shows that two conditions are not met; the principle of autonomy should not be overridden. Therefore, at this moment, a directive counselling approach on donor conception disclosure cannot be ethically justified.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Allan, S. 2012. Donor conception, secrecy and the search for information. Journal of Law and Medicine 19(631): 631–650.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • American Society for Reproductive Medicine. 2013. Recommendations for gamete and embryo donation: A committee opinion. Fertility and Sterility 99(1): 47–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Association of Biomedical Andrologists, Association of Clinical Embryologists, British Andrology Society, British Fertility Society, and Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. 2008. UK guidelines for the medical and laboratory screening of sperm, egg and embryo donors. Human Fertility 11(4): 201–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Australian and New Zealand Infertility Counsellors Association. 2012. Donor conception: Ethical aspects of information disclosure. Submission to Nuffield Council on Bioethics. http://www.nuffieldbioethics.org/sites/default/files/files/ANZICA.pdf. Accessed September 1, 2013.

  • Baran, A., and R. Pannor. 1993a. Lethal secrets: the psychology of donor insemination. Problems and solutions, 2nd ed. New York: Amistad Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baran, A., and R. Pannor. 1993b. Perspectives on open adoption. Adoption 3(1): 119–124.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernhardt, B.A. 1997. Empirical evidence that genetic counseling is directive: Where do we go from here? American Journal of Human Genetics 60(17): 17–20.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Beauchamp, T., and J. Childress. 2013. Principles of biomedical ethics, 7th ed. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • British Association of Counselling and Psychotherapy. 2013. Ethical framework for good practice in counselling & psychotherapy. Leicestershire: BACP.

  • British Infertility Counselling Association. 2013. Guidelines for good practice in infertility counselling: Third edition 2012. Human Fertility 16(1): 73–88.

  • Blyth, E. 2012. Guidelines for infertility counselling in different countries: Is there an emerging trend? Human Reproduction 27(7): 2046–2057.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Blyth, E., L. Frith, C. Jones, and J.M. Speirs. 2009. The role of birth certificates in relation to access to biographical and genetic history in donor conception. International Journal of Children’s Rights 17(2): 207–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boivin, J., T.C. Appleton, P. Baetens, et al. 2001. Guidelines for counselling in infertility: Outline version. Human Reproduction 16(6): 1301–1304.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Boivin, J. 2003. A review of psychosocial interventions in infertility. Social Sciences & Medicine 57(12): 2325–2341.

  • Bonte, P., G. Pennings, and S. Sterckx. 2014. Is there a moral obligation to conceive children under the best possible conditions? A preliminary framework for identifying the preconception responsibilities of potential parents. BMC Medical Ethics 15(5): 1–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brewaeys, A., I. Ponjaert, E.V. Van Hall, and S. Golombok. 1997. Donor insemination: Child development and family functioning in lesbian mother families. Human Reproduction 12(6): 1349–1359.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • British Medical Association. 2008. Parental responsibility: Guidance from the British Medical Association. http://bma.org.uk/practical-support-at-work/ethics/children. Accessed October 1, 2014.

  • Canadian Fertility and Andrology Society Counselling Special Interest Group. 2009. Assisted human reproduction counselling practice guidelines. http://www.cfas.ca/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=936%3Aassisted-human-reproduction-counselling-practice-guidelines&catid=999%3Aguidelines-counsellors-sig-&Itemid=521. Accessed September 1, 2014.

  • Caughlin, J.P., and T.D. Afifi. 2004. When is topic avoidance unsatisfying? Examining moderators of the association between avoidance and dissatisfaction. Human Communication Research 30(4): 479–513.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cook, R., S. Golombok, A. Bish, and A. Murray. 1995. Keeping secrets: A study of parental attitudes towards telling about donor insemination. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 65(4): 549–559.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Culley, L., and N. Hudson. 2007. Public understandings of science: British South Asian men’s perceptions of third party assisted conception. The International Journal of Interdisciplinary Social Sciences 2(4): 79–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daar, J.F., and R.G. Brzyski. 2009. Genetic screening of sperm and oocyte donors: Ethical and policy implications. The Journal of American Medical Association 302(15): 1702–1704.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Daniels, K.R., V.M. Grace, and W.R. Gillet. 2011. Factors associated with parents’ decisions to tell their adult offspring about the offspring’s donor conception. Human Reproduction 26(10): 2783–2790.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Daniels, K., W. Gillet, and V. Grace. 2009. Parental information sharing with donor insemination conceived offspring: A follow-up study. Human Reproduction 24(5): 1099–1105.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • De Wert, G., W.J. Dondorp, and B.M. Knoppers. 2012. Preconception care and genetic risk: Ethical issues. Journal of Community Genetics 3(3): 221–228.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dondorp, W., G. De Wert, G. Pennings, et al. 2014. ESHRE Task Force on Ethics and Law 21: Genetic screening of gamete donors: Ethical issues. Human Reproduction 29(7): 1353–1359.

  • Edwards, J. 2009. The matter of kinship. In European kinship in the age of biotechnology, edited by J. Edwards and C. Salazar, 1–18. New York and Oxford: Berghahn Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. 2004. Informing offspring of their conception by gamete donation. Fertility and Sterility 81(3): 527–531.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. 2013. Informing offspring of their conception by gamete donation. Fertility and Sterility 100(1): 45–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feast, J. 2003. Using and not losing the messages from the adoption experience for donor-assisted conception. Human Fertility 6(1): 41–45.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Golombok, S., A. Brewaeys, M.T. Giavazzi, et al. 2002a. The European study of assisted reproduction families: The transition to adolescence. Human Reproduction 17(3): 830–840.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Golombok, S., F. MacCallum, E. Goodman, and M. Rutter. 2002b. Families with children conceived by donor insemination: A follow-up at age 12. Child Development 73(3): 952–968.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gottlieb, C., O. Lalos, and F. Lindblad. 2000. Disclosure of donor insemination to the child: The impact of Swedish legislation on couples’ attitudes. Human Reproduction 15(9): 2052–2056.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Haimes, E. 1988. “Secrecy”: What can artificial reproduction learn from adoption? International Journal of Law and the Family 2(1): 46–61.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hammarberg, K., M. Carmichael, L. Tinney, and A. Mulder. 2008. Gamete donors’ and recipients’ evaluation of donor counselling: A prospective longitudinal cohort study. The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 48(6): 601–606.

  • Hayden, J. 2005. Genetics: Uphold the rights of all clients to informed decision-making and voluntary action. Nursing Standard 20(3): 48–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hertz, R., M.K. Nelson, and W. Kramer. 2013. Donor conceived offspring conceive of the donor: The relevance of age, awareness, and family form. Social Science & Medicine 86(June): 52–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hewitt, G. 2002. Missing links: Identity issues of donor conceived people. Journal of Fertility Counselling 9(3): 14–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horowitz, J.E., J.P. Galst, and N. Elster. 2010. Ethical dilemmas in fertility counseling. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Human Fertilisation and Embryology Association. 2012. Code of practice, 8th ed. London: HFEA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Imber-Black, E.E., ed. 1993. In Secrets in families and family therapy. New York: Norton.

  • Jadva, V., T. Freeman, W. Kramer, and S. Golombok. 2009. The experiences of adolescents and adults conceived by sperm donation: Comparisons by age of disclosure and family type. Human Reproduction 24(8): 1909–1919.

  • Janssens, P.M.M.W., A.W. Nap, and L.F.J.M.M. Bancsi. 2011. Reconsidering the number of offspring per gamete donor in the Dutch open-identity system. Human Fertility 14(2): 106–114.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, L., K. Bourne, and K. Hammarberg. 2012. Donor conception legislation in Victoria, Australia: The “Time to Tell” campaign, donor-linking and implications for clinical practice. Journal of Law and Medicine 19(4): 803–819.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kainz, K. 2001. The role of the psychologist in the evaluation and treatment of infertility. Women’s Health Issues 11(6): 481–485.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kessler, S. 1997. Genetic counseling is directive? Look again. American Journal of Human Genetics 61(2): 466–467.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Kirkman, M. 2003. Parents’ contributions to the narrative identity of offspring of donor-assisted conception. Social Science & Medicine 57(11): 2229–2242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirkman, M. 2004. Genetic connection and relationships in narratives of donor assisted conception. Australian Journal of Emerging Technologies and Society 2(1): 1–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirklin, D. 2007. Framing, truth telling and the problem with non-directive counseling. Journal of Medical Ethics 33(1): 58–62.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Klock, S. 1997. The controversy surrounding privacy or disclosure among donor gamete recipients. Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics 14(7): 378–380.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Klock, S. 2013. Disclosure decisions among known and anonymous egg donor recipients. In Principles of oocyte and embryo donation, edited by M.V. Sauer, 195–204. London: Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lalos, A., C. Gottlieb, and O. Lalos. 2007. Legislated right for donor-insemination children to know their genetic origin: A study of parental thinking. Human Reproduction 22(6): 1759–1768.

  • Landau, R. 1998. The management of genetic origins: Secrecy and openness in donor-assisted conception in Israel and elsewhere. Human Reproduction 13(11): 3268–3273.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lindblad, F., C. Gottlieb, and O. Lalos. 2000. To tell or not to tell—what parents think about telling their children that they were born following donor insemination. Journal of Psychosomatic Obstetrics and Gynecology 21(4): 193–203.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lycett, E., K. Daniels, R. Curson, and S. Golombok. 2004. Offspring created as a results of donor insemination: A study of family relationships, child adjustment, and disclosure. Fertility and Sterility 82(1): 172–179.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • MacCallum, F., S. Golombok, and P. Brinsden. 2007. Parenting and child development in families with a child conceived through embryo donation. Journal of Family Psychology 21(2): 278–287.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Maron, B.J., J.R. Lesser, N.B. Schiller, K.M. Harris, C. Brown, and H.L. Rehm. 2009. Implications of hypertrophic cardiomyopathy transmitted by sperm donation. The Journal of American Medical Association 302(15): 1681–1684.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • McGee, G., S.-V. Brakman, and A.D. Gurmankin. 2001. Gamete donation and anonymity: Disclosure to children conceived with donor gametes should not be optional. Human Reproduction 16(10): 2033–2036.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • McHaffie, H.E., I.A. Laing, M. Parker, and J. McMillan. 2001. Deciding for imperilled newborns: Medical authority or parental autonomy? Journal of Medical Ethics 27(2): 104–109.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • McWhinnie, A.M. 1984. Annex: The case for greater openness concerning AID. In AID and after: Papers from BAAF, BASW and a Scottish Working Party. London: British Agencies for Adoption and Fostering.

  • McWhinnie, A.M. 2001. Gamete donation and anonymity: Should offspring from donated gametes continue to be denied knowledge of their origins and antecedents? Human Reproduction 16(5): 807–817.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Nachtigall, R.D. 1993. Secrecy: An unresolved issue in the practice of donor insemination. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 168(6): 1846–1851.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Nachtigall, R.D., J.M. Tschann, S.S. Quiroga, L. Pitcher, and G. Becker. 1997. Stigma, disclosure and family functioning among parents of children conceived through donor insemination. Fertility and Sterility 68(1): 83–89.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Nachtigall, R.D., G.B. Becker, S. Szkupinski, and J.M. Tschann. 1998. The disclosure decision: Concerns and issues of parents of children conceived through donor insemination. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 178(6): 1165–1170.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Nordqvist, P., and C. Smart. 2014. Relative strangers: Family life, genes and donor conception. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

  • Nuffield Council on Bioethics. 2013. Donor conception: ethical aspects of information sharing. London: Nuffield Council on Bioethics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oduncu, F.S. 2002. The role of non-directiveness in genetic counseling. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 5(1): 53–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Owen, L., and S. Golombok. 2009. Families created by assisted reproduction: Parent-child relationships in late adolescence. Journal of Adolescence 32(4): 835–848.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Peterson, B., J. Boivin, J. Norré, et al. 2012. An introduction to infertility counseling: A guide for mental health and medical professionals. Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics 29(3): 243–248.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Ravitsky, V. 2012. Conceived and deceived: the medical interests of donor-conceived individuals. The Hastings Center Report 42(1): 17–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ravelingien, A., and G. Pennings. 2013. The right to know your genetic parents: from open-identity gamete donation to routine paternity testing. American Journal of Bioethics 13(5): 33–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, C.R. 1942. Counseling and psychotherapy: Newer concepts in practice. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rumball, A., and V. Adair. 1999. Telling the story: Parents’ scripts for donor offspring. Human Reproduction 14(5): 1392–1399.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sachs, P., and L. Hammer Burns. 2006. Recipient counseling for oocyte donation. In Infertility counseling: A comprehensive handbook for clinicians, 2nd ed., edited by S.N. Covington and L. Hammer Burns, 319–338. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Serre, J.-L., A.-L. Leutenegger, A. Bernheim, M. Fellous, A. Rouen, and J.-P. Siffroi. 2014. Does anonymous sperm donation increase the risk for unions between relatives and the incidence of autosomal recessive diseases due to consanguinity? Human Reproduction 29(3): 394–399.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Shenfield, F. 1999. Truth or dare? Anonymity: The case for. Progress in Reproduction 3: 8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shenfield, F., and S.J. Steele. 1997. What are the effects of anonymity and secrecy on the welfare of the child in gamete donation? Human Reproduction 12(2): 392–395.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sims, C.A., P. Callum, M. Ray, J. Iger, and R.E. Falk. 2010. Genetic testing of sperm donors: Survey of current approaches. Fertility and Sterility 94(1): 126–129.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Slepian, M.L., E.J. Masicampo, N.R. Toosi, and N. Ambady. 2012. The physical burdens of secrecy. Journal of Experimental Psychology General 141(4): 619–624.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Snowden, R., and E. Snowden. 1993. The gift of a child, 2nd revised ed. Exeter, UK: University of Exeter Press.

  • Strauss, B., and J. Boivin. 2001. 2.1. Counselling within infertility. In Guidelines for counseling in infertility, edited by ESHRE Taskforce SIG Psychology and Counseling. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thorn, P. 2006. Recipient counseling for donor insemination. In Infertility counseling: A comprehensive handbook for clinicians, 2nd ed., edited by S.N. Covington and L. Hammer Burns, 305–318. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thorn, P., and T. Wischmann. 2009. German guidelines for psychosocial counselling in the area of gamete donation. Human Fertility 12(2): 73–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Turner, A.J., and A. Coyle. 2000. What does it mean to be a donor offspring? The identity experience of adults conceived by donor insemination and the implications for counseling and therapy. Human Reproduction 15(9): 2041–2051.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Vangelisti, A.L., and J.P. Caughlin. 1997. Revealing family secrets: The influence of topic, function, and relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 14(5): 679–705.

  • Visser, M., P.A.L. Kop, M. VanWel, F. Van der Veen, G.J.E. Gerrits, and M.C.B. Van Zwieten. 2012. Counselling on disclosure of gamete donation to donor offspring: A search for facts. Facts, Views and Vision in Obstetrics and Gynaecology 4(3): 159–172.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Xafis, V., D. Wilkinson, L. Gillam, and J. Sullivan. 2014. Balancing obligations: Should written information about life-sustaining treatment be neutral? Journal of Medical Ethics. doi:10.1136/medethics-2013-101965.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Bioethics Institute Ghent (BIG), Department of Philosophy and Moral Science, Ghent University, Blandijnberg 2, B-9000, Gent, Belgium

    Inez Raes, An Ravelingien & Guido Pennings

Authors
  1. Inez Raes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. An Ravelingien
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Guido Pennings
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Inez Raes.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Raes, I., Ravelingien, A. & Pennings, G. Donor Conception Disclosure: Directive or Non-Directive Counselling?. Bioethical Inquiry 13, 369–379 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-015-9686-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-015-9686-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation