Principle and pragmatism in donor conception

As the Department of Health prepares to make an announcement about the future of egg and sperm donation in the United Kingdom, speculation as to what recommendations it will make to ministers is rife. Newspapers over the weekend reported that we're about to see anonymous donation outlawed. Then, on Monday, reports emerged that the government will not, after all, be proposing an end to anonymity.

Many fertility clinicians have voiced concerns that an end to anonymous egg and sperm donation will have a detrimental effect upon the supply of gametes for infertile couples. This is no doubt true. The current crop of donors, who largely prefer their identity to be kept a secret, are likely to be deterred if anonymity is removed.

But, practicalities aside, there is also a principle at stake here: a loss of reproductive options for some people. The removal of anonymous gamete donation will lead to some couples preferring to remain childless rather than have a child through known donation. If we know that anonymous donation causes harm to those born from it, then it is perhaps better that those children never get born. But we simply don't know whether it is harmful or not. We know that some people are unhappy about the circumstances of their conception. But there are many thousands of children and adults who have been born of anonymous donor conception and there is no indication that they are harmed by the method of their conception. Should we prevent parents who prefer anonymity from having children because of an unproven assumption that anonymity is bad for the kids?

The debate around donor anonymity has often been presented as principled opposition to anonymity versus a pragmatic plea for it to continue. But there are principles at stake on both sides of the argument which the Department of Health must balance and, ultimately, from which members of parliament must choose.