Nearly one-third of UK egg donation parents didn’t understand identity-release laws
“I’m the only mum she knows”: Parents’ understanding of, and feelings about, identity-release egg donation. (Lysons, 2022)
Lysons, J., Imrie, S., Jadva, V., & Golombok, S. (2022). “I’m the only mum she knows”: Parents’ understanding of, and feelings about, identity-release egg donation. Human Reproduction, 37(10), 2426–2437. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/deac174
Geographical Location: UK
Question: How do parents understand and feel about identity-release egg donation, particularly regarding their child’s future ability to access identifying information about the egg donor?
Design: Researchers interviewed mothers and fathers separately when their children were around 5 years old (between 2018 and 2019). This was phase two of a longer-term study. The interviews asked parents what they understood about whether their child could find out information about the egg donor in the future, and how they felt about the possibility of their child contacting the donor someday. The researchers analyzed the interviews in two stages. First, they looked at whether parents actually understood what identity-release means and what rights their child has. Second, they focused on mothers’ feelings about future donor contact (only including mothers who understood identity-release in this second analysis).
Sample: 61 mothers and 51 fathers whose children were around 5 years old and conceived using identity-release egg donation. These families came from 12 UK fertility clinics. About 85% of families from the first phase of the study agreed to participate again in this phase. The families were mostly White British, highly educated (71% of both mothers and fathers had completed higher education), and married or in long-term partnerships (93% were still together). On average, mothers were 47 years old and fathers were 49 years old.
Key Findings
Nearly one-third of parents didn’t understand what identity-release actually means. Some parents (41% of mothers and 68% of fathers who didn’t understand) didn’t know whether their child could find out information about the donor in the future. Others thought they had used an anonymous donor, not realizing their donor would be identifiable.
Among the 44 mothers who understood identity-release, three distinct themes emerged regarding their thoughts and feelings about future donor-child contact.
Identity-release as a threat: Many mothers perceived knowing the donor’s identity and potential contact as threatening, viewing it as a threat to the mother-child relationship, a threat to the child, or a threat to the donor. Mothers adopted three coping strategies to manage this threat: emphasizing parenthood (highlighting their own role through gestation, birth, and parenting experience as protective against donor connection), distancing (minimizing knowledge of the donor, creating distance from the identity-release process itself by situating it in the future, or rejecting the prospect of relationship with the donor), and reluctant engagement (acknowledging their child’s right to information despite personal discomfort, often based on obligation and recognition that information is accessible in the digital age).
Acceptance—it is what it is: A smaller subgroup of mothers displayed few feelings of threat but stopped short of embracing contact. These mothers demonstrated acceptance ranging from indifference to becoming accepting of identity-release over time. Associated strategy: taking a child-led approach, where mothers deprioritized their own feelings and asserted their child’s right to make decisions about contact.
Embracing identity-release: Another prominent perspective positioned identity-release as an opportunity to be embraced, with three components: representing knowledge of genetic origins as essential to the child (mothers emphasized children’s right to know “where they came from” and saw identity information as fundamental to identity development); expressing personal desire for contact (mothers reported being intrigued about the donor’s identity, wanting to meet the donor, seeking medical history information, or expressing gratitude to the donor); and viewing identity-release as a gateway to a broader family network (accessing networks of same-donor siblings as potential support for their child, particularly important for parents of only children, and in some cases viewing the donor as a potential parental support figure should the mother die). Associated strategy: mother as facilitator, where mothers viewed themselves as uniquely positioned to facilitate positive donor-child contact, often based on conscious choice of UK identity-release over anonymous international treatment, and pursuing additional information about the donor to provide to their child.
Mothers often expressed multiple perspectives simultaneously, perceiving the donor as both threatening and acknowledging identity release as an essential opportunity for their child.
‘At some point, we’ll have to have that conversation with her and with [sibling]. But again, I don’t really want to have that. I know she’s entitled to it, and it’s splashed all over her notes so she’s going to find out, but if there was any way of her not finding out I would do that. I would do anything for her not to find that out.’
‘I’m just going to take it from [child]’s lead and respect whatever he wants to do, because it’s, you know ... it’s his call, it’s his call and I just ... all I need to do is support him to do whatever he wants to do’.
‘This is something they need to know, it’s for their future when they grow. I come from quite a mixed family ... and part of, for me, growing up was getting to know my half family. So I kind of think of it in those terms, that actually it probably is going to be, for them, making sense of themselves and where they came from’.
Limitations: Participants were predominantly from White, middle-class backgrounds. Families who didn’t want to tell their children about egg donation were less likely to participate in the follow-up study.
Applications: The research suggests that enhanced counseling should be provided not only pre-treatment but also during childhood, when disclosure and donor contact become more salient psychologically. Parents would benefit from psycho-educational approaches that help them develop concrete strategies for managing complex feelings and preparing children for eventual access to donor information. Professionals could screen for parental anxiety about disclosure during pediatric care, not just during fertility treatment. Counseling should acknowledge that parental threat perception is real and valid, not something to be minimized as “irrational,” and should help parents develop strategies to manage their feelings while still supporting their child’s eventual right to information.
Funding Source: Wellcome Trust Collaborative Award [208013/Z/17/Z]
Lead Author: Jessica Lysons is a researcher at the Centre for Family Research, University of Cambridge, focusing on family psychology and assisted reproductive technologies. No connection to donor conception was disclosed.
Regulatory Context
The UK is regulated by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA), established by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 and amended in 2008. Fertility treatment is provided at both NHS and private licensed clinics.
Donor anonymity law changed in 2005. Donors who registered after April 1, 2005 must be identifiable. Donor-conceived individuals born from donations after this date can request identifying information (name, date of birth, town of birth, last known address) once they turn 18. For those conceived before April 2005, donors are anonymous unless they have chosen to re-register as identifiable.
If both the donor-conceived person and their half-sibling(s) are on the HFEA Register and request information, the HFEA can tell them whether they’re genetically related. Anyone over 16 can ask the HFEA this question
Single women, female same-sex couples, and heterosexual couples all have equal legal access to fertility treatments, including donor conception. Since 2013, all women qualify for fertility services regardless of marital status or sexual orientation.
The 10-family limit restricts the number of families that can be created from a single donor’s sperm at UK licensed clinics; this limit applies to both UK donors and imported donor sperm. There is no corresponding family limit for egg donors. No national donor registry exists to track egg donors, though sperm donors are registered with the HFEA.
Donors can only be compensated for verified expenses: £750 per cycle for egg donors and £35 per clinic visit for sperm donors. Only altruistic donation is permitted.
Related Posts
Maternal fears about donor contact don't prevent disclosure plans (Lysons, 2023)
Study reveals nuances in how young DCP feel about their origins (Jadva, 2023)
Parent views on "right age" for donor connection (Gilman, 2025)