Until the Warnock Report of 1984, the veil of secrecy surrounding donor assisted conception in the UK went more or less unchallenged. Starting with a look at the Report and subsequent legislation, Eric Blyth explores the main arguments for and against releasing information about their genetic origins to donor assisted offspring. Factors contributing to the debate include increasing public awareness of the importance of genetics in defining identity, the significant shift in attitudes towards openness in adoption which has taken place in England and Wales since the early 1990s and reluctance on the part of semen donors to be known to their offspring. Different attitudes in different parts of the world are also examined, as are the limitations of human rights legislation at both national and international levels.
AndersonJBloodJ, The Role of Counsellors in Facilitating Contact Between Donorconceived Individuals and their Donor, paper presented at the 16th World Congress on Fertility and Sterility, San Francisco, 5–12 October 1998.
2.
BaranAPannorR, Lethal Secrets: The psychology of donor insemination, New York: Amistad Press, 1993.
3.
BlythE, ‘I wanted to be interesting. I wanted to be able to say “I've done something interesting with my life”: interviews with surrogate mothers in Britain’, Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psychology12, pp 189–98, 1994.
4.
BlythE, ‘The United Kingdom's Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 and the welfare of the child: a critique’, International Journal of Children's Rights3:3/4, pp 417–38, 1995a.
5.
BlythE, ‘Not a primrose path: commissioning parents' experiences of surrogacy arrangements in Britain’, Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psychology13:3/4, pp 185–96, 1995b.
6.
BlythE, ‘Donor assisted conception and donor offspring rights to genetic origins information’, International Journal of Children's Rights6:3, pp 237–53, 1998.
7.
BlythECrawshawMSpeirsJ, (eds), Truth and the Child 10 Years on: Information exchange in donor assisted conception, Birmingham: British Association of Social Workers, 1998.
8.
BlythEHuntJ, ‘Sharing genetic origins information in donor assisted conception: views from licensed centres on HFEA Donor Information Form (91) 4’, Human Reproduction13:11, pp 3274–77, 1988.
9.
CookRGolombokS, ‘A survey of semen donation: Phase 2 — the view of the donors’, Human Reproduction10, pp 951–59, 1995.
10.
CookRGolombokSBishAMurrayC, ‘Disclosure of donor insemination: parental attitudes’, American Journal of Orthopsychiatry65: 4, pp 549–59, 1995.
11.
Council of Europe, Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Strasbourg: Council of Europe, 1950.
12.
Council of Europe, Human Artificial Procreation, Strasbourg: Council of Europe, 1989.
13.
Council of Europe, Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Dignity of the Human Being with Regard to the Application of Biology and Medicine, Strasbourg: Council of Europe, 1996.
14.
CursonR, ‘The best interests of the child and the best interests of the donor’, DI Network Newsletter, pp 6–7, 11 May 1998.
15.
DanielsK R, ‘The semen providers’, in DanielsK RHaimesE (eds), Donor Insemination: International social science perspectives, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998.
16.
Department of Health and Social Security, Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Human Fertilisation and Embryology (The Warnock Report), Cmnd 9414, London: HMSO, 1984.
17.
Donor Conception Support Group of Australia Inc, Let the Offspring Speak: Discussions on donor conception, George's Hall, New South Wales: Donor Conception Support Group of Australia, 1997.
18.
Feversham Committee, Report of the Departmental Committee on Human Artificial Insemination, Cmnd 1105, London: HMSO, 1960.
19.
FlekkøyM GKaufmanN H, The Participation Rights of the Child: Rights and responsibilities in family and society, London: Jessica Kingsley, 1997.
20.
FreemanM, ‘The New Birth Right?’, International Journal of Children's Rights4, pp 273–97, 1996.
21.
GregoireAMayerR, ‘The impregnators’, Fertility and Sterility16:1, pp 130–34, 1964.
22.
HaimesE, ‘Gamete donation and the management of genetic origins’, in StaceyM (ed), Changing Human Reproduction, London: Sage, 1992.
23.
HarveyJ, In the Interests of Donor Offspring, paper given at XVI Annual Scientific Meeting of the Fertility Society of Australia, Adelaide, 1997.
24.
HewittW, ‘Why I told our children’, in Donor Conception Support Group of Australia, as above.
25.
Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, Donor Information Form (HFEA Register (91)4), London: HFEA, 1994.
26.
Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, Code of Practice, London: HFEA, 1998.
27.
JohnsonM, ‘Payment to gamete donors: position of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority’, Human Reproduction12, pp 1839–42, 1997.
28.
King's Fund Centre, Counselling for Regulated Infertility Treatments: The report of the Counselling Committee, London: King's Fund Centre, 1991.
29.
Lauren, ‘Issues for donor inseminated offspring’, in Donor Conception Support Group of Australia, as above.
30.
MaysA, ‘Secrecy is not an option — trust in the truth’, in BlythECrawshawMSpeirsJ (eds), as above.
31.
McWhinnieA M, Families Following Assisted Conception: What do we tell our child?, Dundee: Department of Social Work, University of Dundee, 1996.
32.
MerricksW, ‘Is it ethical?’, DI Network Newsletter, p 4, 11 May 1996.
33.
MerricksWMontuschiO, A Parent's Perspective, paper presented at British Fertility Society symposium, University of Sheffield, 16 March 1998.
34.
MullenderA, (ed), Open Adoption: The philosophy and the practice, London: BAAF, 1991.
35.
NovaesS, ‘The medical management of donor insemination’, in DanielsK RHaimesE (eds), as above.
36.
PenningsG, ‘The “double track” policy for donor anonymity’, Human Reproduction12:12, pp 2839–44, 1997.
37.
Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, Donor Insemination, London: RCOG, 1987.
38.
RuxtonS, Children in Europe, London: NCH Action for Children, 1996.
39.
SaffronL, Challenging Conceptions: Planning a family by self-insemination, London: Cassell, 1994.
40.
ShenfieldFSteeleS, ‘What are the effects of anonymity and secrecy on the welfare of the child in gamete donation?’, Human Reproduction12, pp 392–95, 1997.
41.
SimpsonS, ‘Truth and the child: a genetic perspective’, in BlythECrawshawMSpeirsJ (eds), as above.
42.
SnowdenRSnowdenE, The Gift of a Child: A guide to donor insemination (2nd ed), Exeter: University of Exeter Press, 1993.
43.
TriseliotisJShiremanJHundlebyM, Adoption: Theory, policy and practice, London: Cassell, 1997.
44.
United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child, Convention on the Rights of the Child, Ref CRC/C/15/Add 33, 15 February, Geneva: United Nations, 1995.
45.
United Nations, Convention on the Rights of the Child, London: HMSO, 1989.
46.
WavellS, ‘A donor father's sins of omission’, The Sunday Times News Review, p 6, 6 July 1997.
47.
WhippC, ‘The legacy of deceit: a donor offspring's perspective on secrecy in assisted conception’, in BlythECrawshawMSpeirsJ (eds), as above.
