DC Journal Club - October Round Up
We have a URL now! www.dcjournalclub.com
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).
Two posts this month reflect what I’m figuring out in real-time as a parent: how to use children’s books to talk about donor conception without falling into the trap of searching for one “perfect” book, and who else besides your child needs to know their origin story—teachers, friends’ parents, coaches—and when you stop being the one managing that disclosure.
Research Recap
Katsuzaki et al. (2025) found that among 46 Japanese IVF patients, women with female-factor infertility tended to view surplus embryos as “life” and internalize blame, while those with male-factor diagnoses showed greater emotional distancing. Participants strongly supported embryo donation for research but consistently rejected donation to other patients.
Caughey et al. (2025) mapped the decision-making pathways for 175 Australian elective egg freezers facing disposition choices, finding that each option (donation to friends/family, couples, egg banks, research, discarding, or reclaiming) had unique predictors, with personal attitudes being the strongest factor across all choices and concern about others raising their genetic child serving as the primary barrier to donation.
Taylor-Phillips et al. (2025) conducted a systematic review of 23 studies examining online sperm donation platforms, revealing that donors control the supply and process while recipients—often marginalized by clinic policies (single, LGBTQ+, and economically disadvantaged people)—face power imbalances, discrimination, improvisation challenges, and risks including coercion and assault.
Oyegbade et al. (2025) surveyed 100 Nigerian nurses and found that while 51% held positive perceptions of ARTs generally and 60% would consider IVF, substantial majorities (64-79%) rejected third-party reproduction methods, including surrogacy and gamete donation, with 79% citing religious prohibitions as a key factor influencing their views.
D’Amore et al. (2025) interviewed 15 gay male couples who became fathers through cross-border surrogacy, finding that while all fathers committed to transparency about their children’s origins, disclosure practices focused heavily on the surrogates’ role, with notably brief or absent discussion of egg donors or which father was genetically related.
Wei et al. (2025) interviewed 12 Chinese mothers whose daughters were pursuing donor sperm treatment due to male partner azoospermia, revealing complex emotions ranging from initial anger and disbelief to active treatment involvement. Mothers expressed significant concerns about privacy in small communities, potential discrimination against grandchildren, whether sons-in-law would bond with non-biological children, and custody issues in case of divorce, highlighting how cultural contexts shape family involvement in fertility treatment decisions.
Goedeke’s narrative review (2025) identifies five key practices supporting donor-conceived people’s wellbeing (disclosure, access to identifying information, ability to contact donors/siblings, altruistic donation, and adequate support systems) while highlighting how direct-to-consumer DNA testing has effectively ended anonymity regardless of legal frameworks, and how cross-border care and informal donation create significant gaps in screening, legal protections, and record-keeping.
Scheib and Mackenzie’s commentary (2025) responds to Carone et al. (2025) study that found no psychological outcome differences among DCP based on donor type by emphasizing that the findings highlight how family communication processes (especially early disclosure) matter more for wellbeing than structural factors like donor type. They note that DNA testing has made anonymity impossible to guarantee anyway, making it more important to prepare all parties for potential contact rather than debating anonymity policies that technology has rendered obsolete.
An ESHRE peer perspectives review examines the growing gap between sperm donor demand (driven by same-sex couples and single women, now 75% of US sperm bank customers) and supply, identifying barriers including only 5.16% of applicants becoming active donors, discriminatory restrictions like FDA bans on MSM donors, lack of international coordination on donor limits risking hundreds of offspring per donor, and cultural barriers to recruiting ethnically diverse donors.
Other Tidbits
A Marie Claire feature explores the largely unregulated world of DIY fertility in Australia, profiling women who found sperm donors through Facebook groups, dating apps like Tinder, and regulated donor matching apps like Addam, highlighting safety concerns including violation of family caps, legal uncertainty around parental intention, and lack of STI screening.
Summer McKesson’s DNA test to solve a medical mystery—life-threatening blood clots and Marfan syndrome—revealed that her parent’s Duke University fertility doctor, Dr. Charles Peete, used his own sperm without consent to father at least 12 children across multiple families from the late 1970s through 1984. McKesson now speaks publicly to warn potential half-siblings who may unknowingly have Marfan syndrome, which has an average untreated life expectancy of 45 years, while North Carolina still lacks laws against fertility fraud.
In response to UK parliamentary debates proposing restrictions or elimination of egg donor compensation, two reproductive medicine clinicians argue that such paternalistic measures infantilize informed, educated donors and risk reducing donor diversity by excluding those who cannot afford unpaid time off work. The authors contend that removing compensation undermines the trust-based social contract sustaining UK donation programs, potentially driving patients to less-regulated overseas systems, and advocate instead for enhanced support including robust informed consent, follow-up care like London Egg Bank’s two-year wellbeing checks, and fair compensation that maintains accessibility across socioeconomic backgrounds.
Knowing is not enough; we must apply. Willing is not enough; we must do.
- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe