Psychologists, clinic staff, and parents in Brazil hold different views on disclosure
What are the perspectives of patients, ART-related professionals and psychologists toward disclosure of biological origin in oocyte and embryo donation... (Montagnini 2025)
Montagnini, H. M. L., Aquino, A. P., Domingues, T. S., Gomes, C., Panzan, M., Ribeiro, K., Devecchi, T. S. G., Avelar, C., Calazans, L. C., Oliveira, C. A., Carvalho, A., Potiguara, L., Barbosa, R., Chéles, D. S., Caetano, J. P. J., Motta, E. L. A., Chehin, M. B., & Lorenzon, A. R. (2025). What are the perspectives of patients, ART-related professionals and psychologists toward disclosure of biological origin in oocyte and embryo donation within assisted reproduction in Brazil? JBRA Assisted Reproduction, 29(Suppl.2 SBRA 2025), 12. https://doi.org/10.5935/1518-0557.20263528
Geographic Region: Brazil
Research Question: How do Brazilian couples in oocyte and embryo donation programs approach disclosure of biological origin to children, and what are the perspectives of fertility professionals and psychologists on disclosure practices?
Design: Prospective, multicenter, cross-sectional study conducted from May 2023 to March 2025. The researchers administered three separate anonymous online surveys, each targeting a different population: patients enrolled in oocyte and embryo donation programs, fertility clinic staff members, and psychologists working in reproductive medicine throughout Brazil. The surveys collected information on disclosure intentions and perspectives, emotional factors, demographic characteristics, and professional backgrounds.
Sample: 702 individuals were invited to participate, with 401 completing surveys across the three groups. The patient group included 104 respondents (72% response rate) who were enrolled in oocyte and embryo donation programs at six fertility centers across three Brazilian states. The staff group comprised 205 respondents (57% response rate) employed at these fertility centers in various roles. The psychologist group included 92 respondents (47% response rate) working in reproductive medicine throughout Brazil.
Key Findings
Editor’s Note: The paper is an oral abstract from a conference. The findings were all statistically significant, but the study lacked a priori power calculations, so it is unclear whether these associations reflect a robust pattern or instability in a small subgroup. In addition, the abstract does not specify how variables were measured or defined, limiting assessment of whether these scales validly captured what was intended.
Among parents, 33% intended to disclose biological origin to their children, 22% did not intend to disclose, and 45% were uncertain.
Emotions predicted disclosure intentions. Parents who reported feeling joy were less likely to plan disclosure as those who did not report joy. Parents who felt sadness were less likely to disclose as those who did not report sadness. Parents experiencing guilt were less likely to plan to disclose than those without guilt.
Parents who planned to tell the child's grandfather were more likely to also plan to tell the child. The opposite pattern emerged with the child’s grandmother: parents who planned to tell the grandmother were less likely to tell the child. This suggests grandmothers might serve as confidants. Parents planning to tell extended family or friends were also less likely to tell the child.
Among fertility clinic staff, 56% supported disclosure, 10% opposed it, and 34% were undecided. Support for disclosure was significantly less common among staff members aged 41–50 years, those who were single, and those with ≥8 years of professional experience.
Staff members who applied consistent principles across different donor types (e.g., supporting disclosure equally for anonymous and known donors) were more likely to support disclosure overall.
Psychologists showed the strongest support for disclosure: 72% favored disclosure, 2% opposed, and 26% were undecided.
Psychologists with a clear understanding of an ideal disclosure age were more likely to support disclosure. Those actively guiding patients toward transparency were significantly more likely to support disclosure.
Limitations: Cross-sectional design captures intentions and attitudes at a single time point, not actual disclosure behavior or longitudinal changes in perspective. Response rates vary substantially across groups, and non-respondents may differ systematically from respondents in their disclosure attitudes. The abstract provides minimal detail on sample characteristics (age, race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, family structure, prior disclosure experience).
Applications: This study maps the current range of disclosure intentions in a mandatory-anonymity system.
Funding Source: Not reported in abstract.
Lead Author: Helena Maria Loureiro Montagnini is a reproductive psychologist and researcher at Huntington Medicina Reprodutiva (Eugin Group) in São Paulo, Brazil, specializing in psychological aspects of assisted reproduction. No personal connection to donor conception was disclosed.
Regulatory Context
Brazil maintains mandatory donor anonymity for all forms of gamete and embryo donation. The National Health Surveillance Agency (ANVISA) enforces strict anonymity protocols, prohibiting disclosure of donor identity to recipients and offspring under any circumstances except in life-threatening medical emergencies.
Brazil’s Children’s Act grants all children the legal right to know their genetic identity by filing a lawsuit. In theory, a donor-conceived individual could pursue legal action to discover donor identity.
Only altruistic donation is permitted; donors may be reimbursed for reasonable expenses but not paid for gametes.
Fertility treatments are available to heterosexual married couples and, in practice, some LGBTQ+ individuals and unmarried couples, though access varies by clinic and state.
The donation information is recorded in medical records, but disclosure remains a private family decision.
Related Posts