Hammarberg Karin, Johnson Louise, Bourne Kate, Fisher Jane, Kirkman Maggie
Jean Hailes Research Unit, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Hum Reprod. 2014 Feb;29(2):286-92. doi: 10.1093/humrep/det434. Epub 2013 Dec 6.
How do gamete donors who presumed they could remain anonymous respond to proposed legislation to retrospectively remove anonymity?
A little more than half of the donors opposed the recommendation to introduce legislation to remove donor anonymity with retrospective effect.
An increasing proportion of parents disclose their origins to their donor-conceived children and growing numbers of donor-conceived adults are aware of how they were conceived. Research indicates that access to information about the donor is important to donor-conceived people. However, worldwide most donor-conceived people are unable to find any identifying information about the donor because of the practice of anonymous gamete donation.
STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: This study adopted a qualitative research model using semi-structured interviews with gamete donors that included open questions. Interviews with 42 volunteers were conducted between December 2012 and February 2013.
PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Before 1998 gamete donors in Victoria, Australia, were able to remain anonymous. Pre-1998 donors were invited through an advertising campaign to be interviewed about their views on a recommendation that legislation mandating retrospective release of identifying information be introduced.
Donors were almost evenly split between those who supported and those who rejected the recommendation to introduce legislation to remove donor anonymity with retrospective effect. About half of the donors who rejected the recommendation suggested the compromise of persuading donors voluntarily to release information (whether identifying or non-identifying) to donor-conceived people. These donors were themselves willing to supply information to their donor offspring. The findings of this study informed the Victorian Government's response to the proposed legislative change. While acknowledging donor-conceived people's right of access to information about their donors, the Government decided that identifying information should be released only with the consent of donors and that donors should be encouraged to allow themselves to be identifiable to their donor offspring.
LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: There is no way of knowing whether participants were representative of all pre-1998 donors.
The balancing of donors' and donor-conceived people's rights requires utmost sensitivity. All over the world, increasing numbers of donor-conceived people are reaching adulthood; of those who are aware of their mode of conception, some are likely to have a strong wish to know the identity of their donors. Legislators and policy-makers in jurisdictions permitting anonymous gamete donations will need to respond when these desires are expressed, and may choose to be guided by the model of consultation described in this paper.
STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: The study was funded by the Victorian Department of Health. The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.
Not applicable.
那些原本认为自己可以保持匿名的配子捐赠者，对拟议中的具有追溯效力取消匿名性的立法持何种反应？
略多于一半的捐赠者反对引入具有追溯效力取消捐赠者匿名性的立法建议。
越来越多的父母向他们通过捐赠配子受孕的孩子透露其身世，并且越来越多通过捐赠配子受孕的成年人知晓自己的受孕方式。研究表明，获取关于捐赠者的信息对通过捐赠配子受孕的人很重要。然而，在全球范围内，由于匿名配子捐赠的做法，大多数通过捐赠配子受孕的人无法找到任何关于捐赠者的身份识别信息。
研究设计、规模、持续时间：本研究采用定性研究模型，对配子捐赠者进行半结构化访谈，其中包括开放式问题。在2012年12月至2013年2月期间对42名志愿者进行了访谈。
参与者/材料、环境、方法：1998年之前，澳大利亚维多利亚州的配子捐赠者能够保持匿名。通过广告宣传邀请1998年之前的捐赠者就一项关于引入强制追溯公布身份识别信息的立法建议发表看法接受访谈。
在支持和反对引入具有追溯效力取消捐赠者匿名性立法建议的捐赠者之间几乎平分秋色。约一半反对该建议的捐赠者提出了一种折衷办法，即说服捐赠者自愿向通过捐赠配子受孕的人提供信息（无论是身份识别信息还是非身份识别信息）。这些捐赠者自己愿意向其捐赠后代提供信息。本研究结果为维多利亚州政府对拟议中的立法变更的回应提供了参考。政府虽然承认通过捐赠配子受孕的人有权获取关于其捐赠者的信息，但决定只有在捐赠者同意的情况下才公布身份识别信息，并且应鼓励捐赠者让其捐赠后代能够识别自己。
局限性、谨慎的理由：无法确定参与者是否代表了所有1998年之前的捐赠者。
平衡捐赠者和通过捐赠配子受孕者的权利需要极度谨慎。在世界各地，越来越多通过捐赠配子受孕的人成年；在那些知晓自己受孕方式的人中，有些人可能强烈希望了解其捐赠者的身份。在允许匿名配子捐赠的司法管辖区，立法者和政策制定者在这些愿望表达出来时将需要做出回应，并且可能会选择以本文所述的协商模式为指导。
研究资金/利益冲突：该研究由维多利亚州卫生部资助。作者声明无利益冲突。
不适用。
