Donor-Conceived Adults and Parents Describe Life After Discovering Insemination Fraud
Experiences of insemination fraud: Discovering and navigating unexpected and entangled connections. (Indekeu, 2026)
Indekeu, A., Gootjes, M., Enzlin, P., & Siermann, M. (2026). Experiences of insemination fraud: Discovering and navigating unexpected and entangled connections. Human Fertility, 29(1), 2712350. https://doi.org/10.1080/14647273.2026.2712350
Geographic Region: The Netherlands and Belgium
Research Question: How do donor-conceived people and parents experience insemination fraud, and what are their needs for and perceptions of psychosocial support?
Design: Exploratory qualitative study using narrative in-depth interviews between September 2024 and February 2026. AI was used for translation assistance during the research process.
Sample: 19 participants (14 DCP and 5 parents) from 15 families spanning 8 distinct cases of insemination fraud. Donor-conceived participants ranged in age from 31 to 48 years. For DCP, time since learning they were donor-conceived ranged from 8 months to 42 years, and time since discovering the insemination fraud ranged from 8 months to 7.5 years. Notably, for 9 DCP, the two events were nearly simultaneous (six months or less between events). No siblings who grew up together within one family participated. All but one donor-conceived participant grew up in mother-father families. All participants were from the Netherlands (6 cases) or Belgium (2 cases), and their fertility treatments took place between 1974 and 1994. The study included four types of insemination fraud: a doctor using his own sperm for donor insemination (12 participants), a doctor’s sperm used instead of the intended partner’s sperm (1 participant), donor sperm used instead of the partner’s sperm (4 participants), and miscellaneous donor sperm such as non-registered donors (2 participants). The researchers recruited participants through advertisements on a university website and social media, outreach via donor conception support organizations (Fiom, Stichting Donorkind, Donae), donor-conceived people’s podcasts, and snowball sampling. The article provides no information about participants’ race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, educational background, or gender identity.
“The term ‘insemination fraud’ … was not always in line with the way parents and donor-conceived participants perceived insemination fraud. Some participants agreed with the reasoning behind the term ‘insemination fraud’, as they explained there was deceit involved, in that something happened without consent. Others felt that ‘fraud’ implies that there was intent to do something fraudulent, which was harder to prove or to know. Lack of response or action from the clinic’s side could make participants more suspicious about the degree of intent and therefore fraud. However, the word ‘fraud’ leaves little room for nuance, and some participants preferred the term ‘fraud’ over ‘scandal’, ‘as fraud limits itself to what the man did, what he is responsible for. Scandal involves us as well’. Similarly, participants stated that ‘scandal’ does not cover the complexities of their experience accurately. Some stated that neither ‘fraud’ nor ‘scandal’ fitted well but did not know what other word would be good to use. One participant suggested the term ‘insemination abuse’ to cover the psychosocial implications for all those involved, whether they are donor-conceived people, parents or (in specific cases) donors.”
Key Findings
The discovery of insemination fraud prompted complex identity reckonings for the donor-conceived participants, involving both grief over lost aspects of identity and, for some, a sense of relief or explanation. Participants described an involuntary engagement with questions about genetic inheritance, including around character and ethics, even when they didn’t believe that genes determine identity.
The donor’s status (alive or deceased) and the reaction of the donor’s raising family shaped how participants processed the fraud and any emerging genetic relationships.
Insemination fraud created complex relational webs involving parents, the donor (often the doctor), the donor’s existing family, newly discovered genetic half-siblings, and wider social networks. These relationships were simultaneously a source of grief, confusion, and, for some, unexpected richness.
Insemination fraud profoundly eroded trust in medical institutions. Participants described the transition from a patient-provider relationship to a legal adversarial one as psychologically harmful. More broadly, the fraud created pervasive suspicion. For example, participants felt uncomfortable with support offered directly by the clinic because of concerns about trust, confidentiality, and agency.
Parental disclosure of donor conception status prior to the fraud discovery shaped and sometimes complicated how donor-conceived participants processed the revelation. Non-disclosure added layers of shock and betrayal.
Mothers in cases where the doctor’s sperm was used in place of a partner’s sperm sometimes used the language of sexual violation to describe their experiences (e.g., “abuse,” “violation,” and “rape”).
Participants described significant unmet needs for psychosocial support and noted the absence of guidelines or precedent. Participants described short-term needs (crisis support, information) and long-term needs (ongoing relational and identity support, peer connection).
Peer support was valued by many but was not universally helpful. Participants affected by cases where donor sperm was used instead of the partner's sperm sometimes did not identify with the broader donor-conception community
Participants reported that media portrayals of insemination fraud tended to sensationalize or oversimplify experiences and did not capture the full complexity of their feelings.
The clinic’s response to the discovery, including whether and how it acknowledged wrongdoing, had a major impact on participants’ experience.
Some participants took issue with the term “insemination fraud,” feeling that it implied proven intent, and suggested alternatives such as “insemination abuse.”
Limitations: The sample is small, and parents are underrepresented. The study is geographically limited to the Netherlands and Belgium. The sample is entirely drawn from cases of insemination fraud that occurred between 1974 and 1994, and all donor-conceived participants are now adults aged 31–48. This is a historically specific cohort, and the experiences described, including the nature of discovery, the legal context, and social norms around fertility treatment, may differ from those of people discovering insemination fraud today. The study does not use any validated psychosocial instruments, which is appropriate for a qualitative design but means there is no standardized way to assess severity of distress, identity disruption, or support needs. Future studies could build on this with mixed-method approaches.
Applications: The authors argue against framing insemination fraud as simply historical because it minimizes ongoing harm and discourages regulatory change. The authors’ recommendation to revisit the terminology used has practical implications for how cases are discussed in clinical, legal, and media contexts. Terminology shapes narrative, and the language used can either validate or minimize the harm done.
Funding Source: The funding source is not identified.
Lead Author: Astrid Indekeu is a researcher at the Institute for Family and Sexuality Studies at KU Leuven (Belgium), where her work focuses on psychosocial aspects of donor conception, including identity, disclosure, and relationships between donor-conceived people, parents, and donors. No personal connection to donor conception was disclosed.
Regulatory Context
The Netherlands
The Artificial Fertilisation Donor Information Act (2004) abolished donor anonymity and established a government-funded national register to manage access to donor information. Donors who donated before 2004 had the option to change their status to anonymous, and for deceased pre-2004 donors, next of kin are approached for consent to share information.
Parents can request a “donor passport” with physical and social data at birth; at age 12, donor-conceived individuals can request the passport themselves; at 16, they can access personally identifiable donor information (name, date of birth, residence).
Belgium
Belgium’s donor conception practices are governed by the Law on Medically Assisted Reproduction and the Destination of Surplus Embryos and Gametes.
Belgium offers IVF to heterosexual couples, single women, and same-sex couples, and allows anonymous and directed (known) oocyte donation.
From January 1, 2024, Belgium established a national database requiring donors and recipients to be registered, and limits donors to enabling six families to have a child.
Donation for commercial reasons is strictly prohibited.
Related Posts
Family type shapes donor-conceived adults' views on anonymity (Casteels, 2024)
Guest Post: Both Sides of The Vial (Menno Hofman)
Dutch study reveals three-phase process for how half-siblings build relationships (Bolt, 2023)