Exploration of how donor-conceived people navigate genetic relations
Nothing if not family? Genetic ties beyond the parent/child dyad (Cutas, 2023)
Cutas, D. (2023). Nothing if not family? Genetic ties beyond the parent/child dyad. Bioethics, 37(8), 763-770. https://doi.org/10.1111/bioe.13213
Geographic Region: Sweden (primary regulatory focus), with comparative references to Germany, Australia, United Kingdom, Netherlands, and international practices.
Research Question: What meaning and significance do genetic connections have for donor-conceived people when those connections are not about parenthood?
Design: This is a philosophical and bioethical analysis that synthesizes regulatory frameworks, qualitative social science research involving donor-conceived people, and ethical theory.
Sample: This article does not present original empirical data. Instead, it reviews and synthesizes findings from qualitative research conducted by other researchers involving donor-conceived people (adults and some adolescents), donors, and parents. The cited studies include diverse family compositions (lesbian couples, heterosexual couples, solo parents, single women), different donor types (anonymous, identity-release, known), and various disclosure patterns. Participants come from multiple countries including Sweden, the UK, Australia, and the Netherlands. The author intentionally centers the perspectives and voices of donor-conceived people themselves throughout the analysis.
Key Findings
Recent qualitative research shows that donor-conceived people do not necessarily perceive donors as competitive threats to parental status. Their interest in genetic relatives is distinct from family belonging and relates to understanding personal identity and “mirroring themselves backward.”
Children can forge meaningful bonds with genetic siblings early in childhood, particularly when parents support communication and contact. Some donor-conceived people report that these childhood connections would not have been possible if access were restricted until adulthood.
Donor-conceived people experience genetic connections as foundational to their sense of self (”a piece of them makes ‘me’ too”) while simultaneously not framing these connections as creating family obligations or replacing social parents.
Current regulations that provide access to donor information only after age 18 and only to identifying information about donors—not donor siblings—fail to address the full range of genetic interests that matter to children during their developmental years.
Parents who initially felt uncomfortable with their children’s connections to genetic relatives reported prioritizing their children’s needs over their own discomfort, recognizing that “whatever is in the best interest of our children should come first, regardless if it’s awkward or uncomfortable for us.”
Donor-conceived people and their families are creating new terminologies to describe genetic relationships outside traditional family structures. Groups of same-donor siblings might refer to themselves as pods, networks, or clans, reflecting their distinctive position of being genetically related but outside conventional family frameworks. These networks possess characteristics that set them apart from typical family groups. They can span diverse geographical areas, social classes, religious backgrounds, and political orientations. This diversity breaks typical social barriers that usually limit family or friend groups, creating social connections that wouldn’t typically form through traditional family or friendship channels.
There are family relationships that one is born into - like having certain parents, siblings, or aunts and uncles. Children don't get to pick these; they're fixed or "rigid" and come from above (passed down). There are relationships one builds through life experiences, like choosing friends or partners. These are called "historical" relationships because they develop over time through personal choices. When we talk about people who are related through gamete or embryo donation, their relationships are unique because they combine both types. There's a genetic connection (the rigid part), but a relationship itself is maintained by choice (the historical part).
Limitations: The article relies primarily on qualitative studies, many with small samples, potentially limiting generalizability to broader donor-conceived populations with different cultural contexts, disclosure experiences, or family configurations. The article does not address potential harms that could result from contact with genetic relatives (rejection, unpleasant discoveries, complications with multiple family systems) with equal depth to the goods it identifies, though it acknowledges these risks exist.
Applications: The article argues that regulations restricting access to genetic information until adulthood (18+) may fail to serve children’s interests during formative years. It suggests policies should consider allowing earlier, age-appropriate access to information about genetic siblings.
Funding Source: Marcus and Amalia Wallenberg Foundation, grant number MAW2020.0074
Lead Author: Daniela Cutas is an associate professor of Medical Ethics at Lund University known for her work on family ethics and reproductive technologies. There is no indication in the article of personal experience with donor conception.
Regulatory Context: Every country has different regulations for donor conception.