DC Journal Club - May Round Up
Please let me know if you have any feedback for the newsletter or topics you’d like me to explore. You can email [laura at dcjournalclub dot com] or message on Substack or Instagram (@dcjournalclub).
I’m looking for a few people willing to occasionally review DCJC summaries and other content before publication and provide feedback on plain-language clarity, interpretation of articles, and overall framing. I’m particularly interested in hearing from people at the intersection of multiple relevant identities and experiences and from subject-matter experts in areas like mental health, child development, research methods, reproductive justice, family systems, policy, and ethics. I’m also looking for folks who can read critically for racism, ableism, cis/het/bio-normativity, and biological essentialism. If you’re interested, email me with a sentence or two about who you are and what perspective you’d bring. Thank you.
Research Recap
Golombok et al. (2023) examined whether young adults born through donor conception or surrogacy have greater psychological problems or poorer relationships with their mothers compared to those conceived without medical help, and whether disclosure age affects outcomes. Following 117 families (22 surrogacy, 17 egg donation, 26 sperm donation, 52 unassisted) for 20 years (infancy to age 20), they found young adults born through donor conception showed similar psychological wellbeing and family relationships compared to those conceived without third party reproduction. Key finding: Mothers who told their children about donor conception before age 7 were significantly less anxious and depressed at the age-20 follow-up than mothers who disclosed later. Families who disclosed earlier also showed less parental conflict and more open communication. Seventeen families (mostly sperm donation) had still not told their 20-year-old children by the study's end.
In a separate study, Golombok et al. (2023) compared whether shared biological motherhood (one partner provides egg, other carries pregnancy using donor sperm) results in stronger mother-child relationships than donor IVF (only one mother has biological connection). They interviewed 120 mothers from 60 UK lesbian couples (30 shared biological motherhood families, 30 donor IVF families, children ages infancy-8 years) using a tool that measures parental warmth, confidence, and emotional engagement. Mothers in both family types showed similar high levels of warmth, joy, and confidence with no differences in how they felt about their children or reflected on relationships. Within shared biological motherhood families, genetic mothers and gestational mothers showed no differences on any measure. Majority of children in both groups were reported as equally close to both mothers, with no significant differences between family types. Most mothers in both groups reported no jealousy toward their partner regarding the child.
Thirup et al. (2025) interviewed 19 Danish men rejected as sperm donors by Cryos International to examine how they experience rejection and cope with new health or genetic information. Rejection reasons included reduced sperm quality, physical illness, genetic predisposition to disease, mental illness, or lack of family medical history. Most cited altruism as motivation; 9 also identified genetic legacy as significant. For 5 men, new health information discovered during screening was most distressing. For 14, the rejection itself was hardest. Many had begun identifying as donors and described feeling a blow to masculinity and sense of defeat. Emotional impact faded within weeks for most.
Tutić Grokša et al. (2025) surveyed 1,097 students across Croatia, Italy, and Greece in medicine, law, philosophy, and theology about attitudes toward medically assisted reproduction. Overall, 77% agreed children have the right to know donor information; 51% agreed MAR should be available to single people and same-sex couples; few supported banning embryo creation (25%), embryo donation (21%), or gamete donation (18%). Field of study was the strongest predictor of attitudes (explaining 46% of variance): theology students showed dramatically higher disapproval compared to philosophy, medicine, and law students. Women had significantly lower disapproval than men. Believers had significantly higher disapproval than non-believers (large effect size). Right-oriented participants had highest disapproval.
Bornstein et al. (2026) interviewed 24 queer adults (ages 18-35, mostly from the United States, half transgender) about how queer identity shapes family-building decisions. Most preferred at-home insemination with a known sperm donor, framing it as consistent with queer values around chosen family. Many wanted biologically related children and found reciprocal IVF appealing, yet expressed discomfort with genetic relatedness as tension with queer values. Participants defined "invasiveness" broadly, including medical procedures and institutional discrimination exposure. At-home insemination was least invasive; adoption/fostering more invasive due to state scrutiny. Anticipated discrimination shaped every pathway. Nearly all raised ethical concerns: DIY insemination more ethical than IVF (eugenics concerns), surrogacy complicated by compensation, adoption/fostering complex due to transracial adoption concerns.
Navarro-Marshall (2026) analyzed 17 Chilean families' recorded origin-story conversations with 19 donor-conceived children (ages 3-8): 5 heterosexual couples, 6 female same-sex couples, 6 single mothers by choice. Conversations averaged 6 minutes 25 seconds with 96 total turns. Parents and children took similar numbers of turns (38 vs. 36 average) but parents used four times more words per turn (15.7 vs. 3.5). All conversations began with a mother's first turn, never a father or child. Approximately 55% of turns were factual; elaborative turns (inviting reflection/feelings) comprised 28% overall (parents 44%, children 28%); narrative turns made up 8%, almost entirely by parents. Forty-one percent of families used a book or story during conversations. Average first disclosure age was 3.8 years. All families reported retelling the story multiple times, typically every four months or more.
Zeghiche et al. (2026) interviewed 40 Canadian parents (ages 28-61, predominantly middle-to-upper-middle-class, 2 non-white) about sperm donor selection for children conceived 2001-2008, using negotiated order theory to examine how institutional, interpersonal, and material constraints shape decisions. Health was a near-universal priority with examination of extended medical histories. Physical resemblance was dominant but varied by family type: heterosexual fathers sought resemblance for paternal legitimacy; lesbian couples for non-biological mother affirmation; single mothers for racial congruence to shield from social scrutiny. Some viewed open-identity donors as essential rights; others framed closed-identity as protecting family boundaries. Clinics narrowed selection through curated lists and restrictions; some offered only closed-identity donors. Extended treatment timelines eroded donor availability. Families used different donors for subsequent children as supplies exhausted. Time pressure intensified and families abandoned initially non-negotiable preferences. Intracouple conflict and unequal participation shaped selection. Some parents expressed regret about donor choices, experiencing tension between decisions made to solve fertility problems versus children's potential future needs.
Other Tidbits
A new piece in New Lines Magazine examines how postmortem sperm retrieval is becoming state policy in Israel and Ukraine, raising questions about consent, autonomy, genetic legacy, and who gets to decide whether a child is brought into the world.
The Progress Educational Trust is hosting an event on Donor 7069 (the Danish sperm donor whose undetected TP53 mutation has been linked to cancer diagnoses and deaths among donor-conceived children across Europe) exploring what went wrong and what needs to change. Join them on Wednesday, June 24, 5:30–7:30pm BST. Register here.
There’s a new Progress Educational Trust podcast episode exploring egg donation across six stakeholder perspectives: donors, recipients, donor-conceived people, fertility professionals, regulators, and policymakers.
Knowing is not enough; we must apply. Willing is not enough; we must do.
- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe