DC Journal Club - December Round Up

Take our first survey!

Take 3 minutes to complete our first-ever DCJC survey!

DC Journal Club seeks guest writers to share perspectives on donor conception that academic research hasn't captured. We welcome contributions from donor-conceived people, donors, parents, professionals, extended family, and others. Learn more here.

At the end of 2024, I reflected on commentary from five researchers on the “controversial” debate of privacy versus disclosure in donor conception that appeared in a 1997 issue of the Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics.

Research Recap

Hagan (2025) analyzed over 600 egg donation ads in two elite university newspapers (1991-2014), finding ads evolved from simple requests to detailed specifications for height, SAT scores, ancestry, and phenotypic traits. By 2001, 67% sought "intelligent" donors defined by test scores, with language suggesting deterministic genetic transmission. Ads conflated race with genetics, treating racial categories as coherent transmissible units, and despite ASRM's 2000 guidelines, none contained adequate health risk disclosures.

Shepard and Potter (2025) conducted secondary analysis of interviews with 33 individuals (18 misattributed paternity, 15 previously unknown donor conception) to examine anagnórisis, or the recognition moment when "nothing changed yet everything changed" following DNA discoveries. The authors propose a therapeutic framework that distinguishes anagnórisis from identity disturbance (event-triggered and potentially growth-producing versus pervasive and maladaptive) and recommend that clinicians normalize recognition events, avoid premature repair, apply trauma-informed pacing, support meaning reconstruction through narrative and existential therapies, and attend to cultural orientations shaping how clients interpret discoveries.

Navarro-Marshall and Larrain Sutil (2025) analyzed naturally occurring home conversations about donor conception recorded by 17 Chilean families with children aged 3-8. Conversations averaged 6.5 minutes and revealed three distinct styles: 1) longer conversations where children actively developed topics and theories; 2) shorter, parent-led conversations using fairy tales where children responded briefly; and 3) straightforward, factual conversations where children took passive roles.

Lindgren et al. (2025) conducted focus groups with 19 fertility practitioners from four Swedish clinics to examine clinical reasoning across different egg donation scenarios. Despite 2019 legal changes permitting lesbian couples and single women to access egg donation and allowing combined donor egg/sperm use, practitioners structured their reasoning around a "standard model" based on single donations for heterosexual couples, creating barriers to newer options.

Morgan et al. (2025) conducted 60 semi-structured interviews with 41 Black women navigating fertility treatment to examine barriers contributing to higher treatment discontinuation rates. Despite most participants having advanced degrees and household incomes over $100,000, they faced systemic barriers. Limited availability of Black donor eggs and sperm created challenges, and some same-sex couples chose informal sperm donation arrangements with friends. Participants experienced racial discrimination in treatment quality, with treatment journeys marked by medical gaslighting, dismissive care, and racist fertility stereotypes.

Carone et al. (2025) interviewed 80 gay fathers from 40 Italian families with surrogacy-conceived children (average age 6) to examine socialization approaches around family diversity and origins. Three distinct strategies emerged: 1) Proactive (most common)—fathers actively prepared children through diverse school/neighborhood selection, books/media, open conversations, teaching responses to "Where's your mom?" questions, and instilling pride; 2) Cautious—fathers waited for children's questions, worried excessive discussion might create anxiety, and responded honestly when asked; 3) Neutral (least common)—fathers treated family as simply normal, assumed understanding through daily life, and had brief matter-of-fact exchanges. Co-parents usually agreed on overall approach but disagreed on specifics: timing of genetic father disclosure, whether to identify him by name, when to introduce the egg donor concept. Fathers focused more on explaining the surrogate's role ("the woman who helped us," "helper," "tia") than the egg donor's genetic contribution, often mentioning the egg donor only in passing or delaying discussion entirely.

Lysons et al. (2022) interviewed 61 mothers and 51 fathers whose children (age ~5) were conceived through identity-release egg donation in the UK. Nearly one-third didn't understand identity-release laws: 41% of uninformed mothers and 68% of uninformed fathers didn't know whether their child could access donor information, while others believed they'd used anonymous donors. Among 44 mothers who understood identity-release, three perspectives emerged: "identity-release as threat" (most common); "acceptance—it is what it is"; and "embracing identity-release".

Kasirye et al. (2025) surveyed 169 Scottish men aged 18-45 about sperm donation attitudes. While 86% viewed donation as generous, willingness to donate varied by recipient type: 52% supported single women, 49% transgender individuals, 46% same-sex female couples, and 42% heterosexual couples. Non-heterosexual men showed stronger motivation, including financial compensation (70% vs 45% heterosexual men). Though 59% believed donor-conceived children should know genetic origins and 54% accepted direct contact from offspring, 62% expressed discomfort about anonymity removal back in 2005.

Other Tidbits

• A new documentary about donor conception is hitting the festival circuit. Dad Genes follows Aaron Long, a former sperm donor who discovers he may have fathered dozens of biological children, and what happens when he connects with them decades later. The film premieres at Dances With Films: New York on January 16. (I watched a screener and appreciated the juxtaposition of the parents’ experiences with the DCP’s.)

• Walker Vreeland died on November 25, 2025, at just 46 years old. His obituary reads like a love letter to the arts: award-winning producer, actor, playwright, radio personality. And woven through his remarkable creative legacy is another story, one that profoundly shaped his last years: Walker was donor-conceived, and he didn’t learn this truth until he was 40 years old.

• Read the materials created by the ConnecteDNA team and collaborators to help gamete donors prepare for contact with donor-conceived people and a project update for the Digital Donor Conception research study.

• A veterinarian and cancer biology PhD student shares his journey of taking commercial DNA tests that revealed unexpected ancestry results and close genetic matches he'd never heard of, leading him on a years-long investigation involving multiple testing platforms, genealogical research, and "search angels" to uncover the truth about his origins.

• A 2 Parkies in a Pod episode features Lucy (pseudonym), diagnosed with Parkinson's in her early forties, who took a DNA test seeking answers about her condition and uncovered an unexpected family revelation that reshaped her understanding of both her health and heritage. Her story explores the intersection of genetic health risks, donor conception, and the importance of medical history transparency.

Knowing is not enough; we must apply. Willing is not enough; we must do.

- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe