The removal of donor anonymity in the UK: What might this mean for donor-conceived people?

Switching on the TV, 'Who Do You Think You Are?' suddenly blurts out of the speakers, and an unknown family history is uncovered as the programme unfolds. The success of the programme speaks volumes for people's longing to unpack different parts of their identity, to better understand who they are, and what – or who – might have led to the person they are now.

Yet, as a researcher who studies the psychological and social implications of assisted reproduction, my mind wanders and I am left thinking: What would it be like to watch this as someone who has a question mark hanging over half of their family tree?

I think that the most significant development in the field of assisted reproduction over the last 25 years, was the UK law change that enabled people conceived using donated gametes to request identifying information about their donor once they turn 18, therefore giving them opportunity to know a little of the 'missing half' of their family tree. I perceive that this development will have the greatest impact for the next quarter-century.

I have spent the last nine years interviewing parents and children in different types of families. At first in family homes, then later online when the pandemic started, I have been humbled by the chance to have a window into the everyday of family life. I have also been able to ask very personal questions about the decisions parents make about starting their family, and what this means for their children. This insight is important for helping us better understand what it is like for parents who needed assistance conceiving. Crucially, research studying families formed through assisted reproduction also informs our understanding of the impact this might have on children – and what it is like for the children – from the young people themselves.

I have now interviewed dozens of young people in different types of families, such as those born to single mothers who used sperm donation, and two-parent families who had a child through surrogacy, gamete donation, or a combination of different methods. From seven years old to 30, I have listened to different stories told by different people. No two are exactly alike, but some patterns do emerge.

As I have shown in my own research published in Human Reproduction, on the one hand some young people or young adults are not interested in finding out more about their donor conception. On the other hand, some are curious – sometimes about the donor, or sometimes about the process. It is precisely this interest, that leads me to believe that the removal of anonymous donation in the UK has been the most important development. The opportunity to have some identifying information, and decide what to do with this information, will be transformative for young people who are donor-conceived.

Given that the legal change came into force in 2005, it was only last year that the first few 18-year-olds were able to contact the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) to request identifying information about their donor. As such, we are yet to uncover what this means for these young adults, and it will be important to conduct empirical investigations of the experiences of young people who make this decision. The change to the law was made long before we understood what the impact of direct-to-consumer tests would have on the lives of donor-conceived people. It is now possible, easy, and relatively affordable to order a DNA test online, send back a swab of saliva, and then soon afterwards receive an email detailing information that can change the course of a person's life.

This new opportunity for unregulated access to genetic links means that donor-conceived people can find out about their donor conception through Ancestry, or 23andme, or similar websites that provide information on genetic 'matches'. For some, a much-wished-for connection might not be found. For others, discovering numerous unexpected connections without support to guide you through the process might be very challenging.

Indeed, research suggests that having structured support in place for donor-conceived young people is crucial. However, the change in law has provided greater certainty for donor-conceived people searching for more information; that the information provided will be the donor's name, date of birth and last known address. The change in law also demonstrates a shift in thinking, in empowering young people to make the decision for themselves about whether they would like to have the information, and – if they would – then what they would then like to use the information for.

Rapid advances in assisted reproductive technologies over the last few decades have been transformative in enabling parents in many different family forms to start a family, often after a long and challenging journey to becoming a parent. Research has shown that children who are donor-conceived have very similar adjustment problems to (and sometimes fewer adjustment problems than) children who are not. Even so, children tend to grow up interested in their surroundings, their friends and their family. Giving a young person the right to decide what to do in relation to their donor puts them at the heart of the policy, when young people are often overlooked or deprioritised by decision-makers.

Whether this will lead to many young people requesting the identifying information, and whether they then will reach out to their genetic relatives, is as yet unknown. Piecing this story together will be the next stage of the puzzle. What is evident, however, is that this development will have a fundamental impact on our understanding of whether it is important for people to know who their donor is, and if so then why.