In a recent New York Times Online OpEd column, Ross Douthat talks about how the children of egg donation and sperm donation react to their conception.
According to his editorial, children conceived by sperm donation are more likely than adopted children to question who they are, to worry whether or not someone they are falling in love with might be an unknown relative, to question whether or not their parents are hiding important information from them, and more likely to be confused on who is a member of their family or not.
There is so much to say regarding this editorial, that I'm not sure where to start. I cannot possibly address every issue raised in one blog post. But one thing must be stated right up front.
His source is a web survey conducted by the Institute for American Values. This organization is certainly biased against assisted reproduction technologies, and their study has not been peer reviewed in established professional journal. Neither author is a scientific researcher, psychologist, or sociologist. And one of the co-authors is a donor-conceived adult, who didn't learn of her conception until she was 18 years old when her father passed away.
[EDITED TO ADD: I have been informed that a sociologist was involved in the study, something I overlooked when I reviewed the report. That said, the report is still sensitive to bias and has not appeared in a peer review journal.]
I don't point this out as a way of poo-pooing the questions brought up in the survey. But it is important to know that there is a strong potential for bias in a research study like this.
For now, however, let's assume that children conceived via gamete donation wrestle with identity questions more than those who were adopted or whose parents are biologically connected to them.
Douthat would have you believe that the only way to confront these problems is to stop paying donors for their egg and sperm, disallow anonymity for the donors so that the children of donors can contact their biological parents, and to limit the number of children that can be brought into this world from a sperm or egg donor (further than the limits already placed by the American Medical Association.)
These limits have already been implemented in Europe, and because of them, fewer men and women are willing to donate sperm or eggs and fewer eggs and sperm are available. This means more couples who desire a baby, but need donor gametes, are unable to have a child. It means longer waiting lists, and more emotional pain for those couples.
But I'm wondering if not paying for sperm or eggs, or refusing donors anonymity, is the best solution. It is certainly not the only solution.
Instead, I'm wondering if a better solution would be to help parents approach their donor-conceived children regarding how they were conceived. You have to consider that adoption has been around much longer than donor conceived parenthood. There are many more resources for parents of adoptees to help them approach the topic in a sensitive and open way.
Parents who are looking for information on how to talk to their donor-conceived children will not find much of anything. In my opinion, more research needs to be put into this. Parents deserve more resources. Their children need more resources.
Also, none of the participants in the survey were donor-conceived but never told of their conception, which is another option. Whether it may be better or worse for children in the long run, we don't know.
I don't think we can ignore these key factors. The survey found that a minority of the donor-conceived adults had these negative feelings. In fact, it found that 20% of the donors-conceived adults went on to become donors themselves.
This tells me that perhaps the topic was handled in a different manner, or there were other family issues involved.
I could write several posts on this topic and go on and on. But I want to share one more thought.
If you are considering IVF or IUI with donor gametes, or you are already the parent of a donor-conceived child, don't look at this web survey and think it makes you a bad parent, or means you "selfishly" conceived your children without consideration for their feelings.
In the past, there was so much more shame surrounding donor conception, and infertility in general. It would not surprise me if this particular batch of adults, ages 18 through 45, faired worse than today's donor-conceived babies.
Today, the shame is less. There are more resources than before, even if those resources are scarce. And most importantly, you have more information and support than ever was available before. If this survey concerns you, speak to a therapist who is experienced in this area.
Knowledge gives you power, and you have so much more available than what the pioneering parents of donor-conceived children had.
Update: Be sure to read an interesting new study on this topic, which showed donor-conceived children of lesbian parents do better than average.
As both an adoptee and a birth mother, I can’t imagine that it would be much different growing up as a donor conceived child. In fact, I would think it may be a bit easier being donor conceived since you would be more likely to have 1 biological parent. However, I do understand why donor conceived children/adults may have questions about their identity. No one, except an adoptee or donor conceived child, can begin to understand what it’s like to spend your life wondering where you came from, who you look like, what health issues you may need to know about. It took me until I was 40 years old to finally find peace of mind and that was only possible because I was reunited in both cases and no longer have to wonder if someone on the street is my mother or my son. It should be a right for all people to know where they came from and not something we have to beg and search to know.
In the interest of factual accuracy, I’d like to point out that one of the co-investigators of the study you referenced above, My Daddy’s Name is Donor, IS a sociologist. Dr. Norval Glenn is a professor in the sociology department at the University of Texas at Austin. Furthermore, the report was released by a group of 23 academics and other professionals from universities and organizations throughout North America. Check out the first two pages of the report. The credentials are all there.
I’m a former donor, and filmmaker, who has been following this issue for a few years. In talking to many donor conceived people it is clear that the emotional pain of being disconnected to ones roots is very powerful. Clearly shame and secrecy play a role in the creation of these feelings. As such I am all for openness and honesty. If I had it to do all over again, knowing what I know, I would have to agree with those who advocate an end to anonymous donation, because anonymity is a big factor in creating a sense of secrecy and shame.
I absolutely agree that it’s important to support all of the families that have been created using these technologies. I don’t believe that “it makes them a bad parent, or means they “selfishly” conceived their children without consideration for their feelings”. However, if as a society, we ignore the realities of their very powerful feelings, if we minimize the response of the donor conceived to protect ourselves, I believe we are being dishonest. While it is very easy to connect to the emotional pain of families that are trying to conceive, the voices and the feelings of those conceived from donor eggs and sperm have not been heard very loudly to date. I do believe that we will be hearing from them, and if we are unwilling to listen, their voices will come from a place of anger. I don’t believe that the anger will be productive, so I am advocate for listening.
As a writer who covers fertility, it only makes sense that your point of view would be in support of those who seek out fertility treatment. However, I think that these people, many of whom are going to take steps that will have profound impacts on their own lives as well as the lives of the children they are hoping to create, need the best information that they can get.
I also agree that had the study entered the discussion in a less forceful way, it might have created more opportunities for listening.
It is shockingly irresponsible on your part to make disparaging comments about a study that you have not read, and about an oganization about which you know virtually nothing. For goodness sakes, you obviously hadn’t even looked at the cover of the report, since you didn’t even know who conducted the study or how many PIs were involved. And yet you seem to feel free to attack it publicly in any way you like — even going so far as to put scare-quotes around the word “study,” so as to suggest that what was written (but how could you know what was written?) is not really a “study.”
Thank you Little Adopted Girl for your comment. You bring up some very important points, for which I don’t have answers. They weigh on my heart.
Kelly, I corrected the error. Thank you.
Michael, thank you for your sensitive, well-thought out post. I agree with much of what you said. As I wrote in the blog post, I could not possibly address every issue in one post. However, I also wonder about whether or not anonymity is a good idea or a bad one, for the reasons you raise. It’s something I’ve been thinking about, and will probably write about in a separate post in the future. It’s such a difficult topic with so many questions.
David, You are right about including quote marks, so I removed them. Thank you for pointing that out to me.
Keep in mind, my blog post is a response to the editorial — not the study. But it is the study he referenced, so I needed to talk about that as well.
As I wrote on your blog as a reply to one of the authors, I did read the study. I read it last week and spent many days thinking about how to respond to the editorial.
However, when writing the blog, I went to your website and looked at the author page. It may be in your best interest to include your third author on that page, since I bet many others will look at it as well. You don’t want anyone else to get confused on who authored the study.
~ Rachel
A few little bits of information. Firstly shortage of donors after removal of anonymity. When New Zealand & later the state of Victoria in Australia removed anonymity they both had more donors. In the UK there have been articles published about the one clinic that made an effort to advertise for donors after the UK removed anonymity & they had no problems recruiting donors. We need to stop blaming legislation for lack of donors – it is more likely to be lack of understanding about the type of people to aim recruitment at. Also after legislation the type of person who donates tends not to want to be paid.
Secondly the idea that maybe we should look at whether it is better for donor conceived people to be told the truth or not – well, of course that is not going to be possible to study those who haven’t been told. But what i have learnt from many years of working in the area of donor conception (doe a support group) is that a great many of those who were told or who found out later in life their donor conceived status had for may years thought that there was something different in their family. They may have felt that they didn’t quite fit in or in some cases that they may have been adopted or that their mother had had an affair.
You were right is suggesting that we need much more long term support for families in donor conception.