Graham, S. (2022). The opposite of a step parent — The genetics without any of the emotion: ‘sperm donors’ reflections on identity-release donation and relatedness. Reproductive BioMedicine and Society Online, 14, 192–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbms.2021.06.003
Geographic Region: United Kingdom
Research Question: How do UK identity-release sperm donors think and feel about identity-release donation, future information exchange, and potential contact with individuals conceived through their donated sperm?
Design: Online survey containing both closed (multiple-choice) and open-ended questions. All donors who completed the survey were eligible for a £15 Amazon voucher. The survey was live for seven weeks between January and March 2017. The questionnaire collected data on donors’ sociodemographic characteristics, motivations for donating, experiences of the donation process, and expectations regarding future donation outcomes, including views on disclosure, contact, and the nature of the relationship with any donor-conceived offspring.
Sample: 168 identity-release sperm donors completed the survey, out of 576 people emailed (response rate = 29%). All participants were HFEA-registered sperm donors (i.e., had explicitly consented to identity-release donation) and completed a donation program at the London Sperm Bank between January 2010 and December 2016. The sample had a mean age of 33 years. The group was ethnically homogeneous: 86% identified as white and 6.5% as Asian. 69% identified as heterosexual, 23% as gay, and 5% as bisexual. 36% were single, 25% were cohabiting, 19% were married or in a civil partnership, 15% had a non-cohabiting partner, and 4% were divorced or separated. The large majority (84%) had no children of their own. The sample was highly educated, with 82% holding a university degree or higher, and most were employed full time (76%). Only 52 donors (31%) reported having had an implications counseling session during the process of becoming a sperm donor.
Key Findings
The majority of donors (63%) thought the UK’s 2005 removal of donor anonymity was a good thing; 28% were neutral; and 9% thought it was a bad thing. 119 of 168 donors chose to explain their answer in a free-text box.
Sixty donors described the importance of donor-conceived children being able to trace their genetic origins. Twenty-five framed this as the child’s “right” to access this information. Thirteen emphasized it was about giving children the “choice” of whether to seek it.
The most commonly expressed concern about removal of anonymity was its potential impact on donor recruitment numbers (14 donors). Seven donors worried about a negative impact on recipient parents. Five donors believed that donors, not children, should be able to choose whether to be identifiable.
Fourteen donors specifically mentioned the importance of the delayed release of donor identity at age 18 as key to their support.“At 18, an individual has the ability to make their own decisions. I feel if they were much younger, they wouldn’t be able to necessarily handle the information in the correct manner.”
60% of donors stated identity-release was their preferred donation method; 15% preferred anonymous donation; 11% preferred known donation; 4% co-parenting; 8% did not know or had another preference. 64 of the 100 donors who preferred identity-release expanded on their reasoning in free text.
Twenty-one emphasized the importance for donor-conceived children of knowing “where they came from.” Fourteen specifically cited the benefit of waiting until the child is 18. Eleven said it “felt right” without elaborating further.
Identity-release was repeatedly described as a “happy medium” between anonymous and known donation. Five donors specifically described how identity-release freed them from any parenting responsibilities: “I remain a donor and am in no direct way a parental figure.”
Known donation was described as potentially too complex and relationship-laden; co-parenting was seen as incompatible with not wanting a parenting role.
Half the donors (50%) believed disclosure should be left entirely to parents; 43% believed children should always be told; 2% believed children should not be told; (5%) were unsure.
Thirty donors elaborated on the parental-autonomy theme in free text, emphasizing that every family situation is different and blanket rules are inappropriate.
Twenty-two donors held the view that truth and honesty meant children should always be told, regardless of parents’ wishes, based on the child’s right to knowledge of their genetic origins or the belief that donor conception should not be treated as something to hide.
Reasons for believing non-disclosure was acceptable included: donor conception not being important (4), knowledge causing problems for the child (2), and protecting the recipient family’s integrity (1).
61 donors (37%) expected to have contact with a donor-conceived individual when that person reached 18; 25% did not expect contact; and 39% were unsure.
When asked what type of contact they preferred, “whatever form the child desires” (64%) was the most frequently selected, followed by email (31%), face-to-face meeting (25%), letter (20%), mediated through a third party (20%), no contact (17%), and telephone (13%). Respondents could select more than one option.
The majority (65%) had no concerns about a child seeking their identity; 23% had minor concerns; 8% had some concerns; and 4% had major concerns.
Free-text elaborations revealed that 11 donors expressed concerns about the impact of identity-release on their own families, including current or future partners and children “destroying a family I may create in the future.” Nine donors expressed concerns about the psychological or emotional impact on themselves of meeting a person conceived with their sperm, including worry about being sought out as a parental figure. Some donors also expressed concern about feeling responsible if the child had a bad upbringing. The “unknown” itself was identified as a source of both anxiety and curiosity: “It’s hard to express these concerns concretely. It’s an unknown quantity. The unknown can always be a bit scary. Mostly I’m intrigued and even a bit excited.”
116 donors (70%) saw positive aspects of identity-release donation for themselves; 22% were unsure; 9% did not. The specific positive aspects were captured through open-ended responses.
19 described interest in physically meeting the child, 10 in exchanging information, 8 in seeing similarities between themselves and the child, and 8 described a sense of accomplishment: “It will make me happy knowing that I gave someone the gift of life and it would be nice if they were appreciative.”
Two donors described how their donor-conceived offspring could extend their own family network, particularly if they remained childless.
Donors were asked to choose from a set of options to describe how they viewed their relationship with any donor-conceived child. The most common response was “a genetic relationship only” (36%), followed by “a special relationship” (23%), “no relationship” (9%), “like a friend’s child” (9%), “like my own child” (9%), “like a niece or nephew” (7%), and “like any other child I know” (7%). 59 donors added further comments in free text.
One donor offered the conceptualization that became the paper’s title: “It is clearly a special relationship, even if (or precisely because) it is genetic only. It is the opposite of a step-parent — the genetics but none of the emotion.”
Twenty donors discussed the “genetic” dimension of the relationship. For some, a genetic link was experienced as inherently significant: “I think even when you try and detach from it you will still come back that you share DNA and they are still part of you.” For others, it held little weight: “The child will have their own parents, the DNA aspect is only a tiny part of who your parents truly are.”
Nine donors described the relationship as uniquely its own and not reducible to existing kinship categories: “A unique connection, but not necessarily a strong connection. I would treat them as any other human, but I would understand if they saw me as something more, and try to be supportive of that if needed.”
Twelve donors emphasized the importance of nurture over nature and sought to distance themselves from any parental role, expressing empathy for recipient parents: “We will be connected on a deep and genetic level, yet at the same time they will not be ‘mine’ at all, as they will have been raised and loved by their families.”
Seventeen donors deferred any definition, stating it was up to the donor-conceived individual to dictate what relationship, if any, would exist.
Limitations: The 29% response rate introduces a risk of non-response bias, which means donors who felt more positively toward identity-release may have been more likely to complete the survey. The study recruited from only one sperm bank (London Sperm Bank), which may not represent all identity-release donors. The survey asked prospective, hypothetical questions: all donors had donated but none had yet been contacted by a donor-conceived individual, so all responses reflect anticipated hopes and fears rather than actual experience. The high proportion of donors who favored identity-release may be an artifact of the methodology: all participants had already enrolled in an identity-release donation program, so they were unlikely to be representative of people who would only donate anonymously. The sample is demographically narrow: mostly white, highly educated, and predominantly full-time employed, which raises questions about the generalizability of findings. The instruments were purpose-designed for this survey rather than validated psychometric tools; there are no reliability or validity data reported. The free-text open-ended methodology, while producing rich qualitative data, is susceptible to social desirability bias. Donors may have presented their views in ways that align with the narrative of being a “good donor”.
Applications: This study provides insight into the internal diversity of sperm donors’ expectations and attitudes. Understanding this diversity may help donor-conceived individuals navigate their own decisions about whether and how to make contact. Both donors and donor-conceived individuals need adequate preparation for the range of possible outcomes of identity requests, including the possibility that the other party’s expectations and desires will differ significantly from their own. Future research should recruit from diverse donor sources, including connection websites and international platforms, and should specifically explore whether donors from racial, ethnic, or socioeconomic minority groups have different experiences and perspectives.
Funding Source: Wellcome Trust, Grant 104385/Z/14/Z.
Lead Author: Susanna Graham is a Research Associate at the Centre for Family Research, University of Cambridge, UK. Her research interests encompass assisted reproductive technologies, relatedness and kinship, gender, parenting, and bioethics. No personal link to donor conception was disclosed.
Regulatory Context
Gamete donation is regulated by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA), the UK’s independent statutory regulator overseeing fertility treatment and embryo research.
In 2005, the UK removed donor anonymity for sperm, egg, and embryo donation. All donors who register with the HFEA from that date forward must agree to be identifiable to any donor-conceived individuals they help create. In 2024, donor-conceived people born on or after April 1, 2005, began reaching the age at which they can formally request identifying information about their donor from the HFEA. Where both parties have registered an interest in contact, donor-conceived individuals can also request the identities of donor siblings.
Those conceived before the 2005 law change under conditions of anonymity do not have the same legal right to identifying donor information, though the Donor Conceived Register (DCR) provides a voluntary mechanism for donors and donor-conceived people from that era to register and potentially match.
The HFEA does not impose a fixed statutory cap on the number of families per donor, but its guidance recommends that donors help create children in no more than 10 families.
All licensed clinics are required to offer implications counseling to prospective donors before donation proceeds.
The UK does not permit commercial donation; donors receive compensation for expenses and inconvenience only.
Related Posts