Page URL:

The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008: Promoting wider access to information about genetic origins?

25 September 2009
By Dr Caroline Jones
Lecturer in Law, University of Southampton
Appeared in BioNews 527
October sees the enactment of almost the entire Human Fertilisation and Embryology (HFE) Act 2008, including the new disclosure provisions for donor-conceived individuals and gamete/embryo donors. In this commentary I outline the amended disclosure provisions and highlight a number of issues raised by these changes.

Section 24 of the 2008 HFE Act replaces section 31 of the 1990 HFE Act with new sections 31 - 31ZG. In summary, the changes to the 'Register of Information' (held by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA)) are as follows: first, a reduction in the age at which a donor-conceived individual can seek information about their donor, from 18 to 16, although identifying information will not be provided until they are 18 (s.31ZA) (1). Second, at 16 a donor-conceived person will be able to seek information about the number, sex and year of birth of their 'donor-conceived half-siblings', conceived using gametes of the same donor - but not information regarding the 'donor's legal children' (s.31ZA(2)(b)). Third, however, the HFEA has some discretion not to release this information in 'special circumstances' where disclosure would be likely to lead to the identification of the donor or any of the 'donor-conceived half siblings' (s.31ZA(6)). Fourth, regarding consanguinity, at 16 a donor-conceived person can seek information as to whether or not they are genetically related to someone they intend to marry, enter a civil partnership or intimate physical relationship with (or are already having), providing that person consents to the request (s.31ZB). Fifth, at 18, donor-conceived individuals can seek identifying information about their 'donor-conceived genetic siblings' (provided neither is the donor's legal child), although all 'siblings' must consent to the disclosure. There is a further caveat that disclosure must not lead to the donor's identity being released, unless they have also consented or provided gametes at a time when the regulations require this information be provided (s.31ZE).

The sixth point sees the introduction of some reciprocity following the prospective removal of donor anonymity in April 2005; that is, the HFEA has the power - but not a duty - to inform donors that identifying information has been applied for, but they cannot disclose the identity of the person seeking it. Seventh, all donors who have provided gametes under the auspices of the 1990 Act can seek information about the number, sex and year of birth of children born as a result of their donations; again the HFEA can, in 'special circumstances' refuse to provide this information if it would lead to the identification of any of these individuals (s.31ZD).

Five key points can be made about these provisions. First, wider disclosure of information is only useful to those who know or suspect they are donor-conceived and contact the HFEA. As there is no legal duty to inform individuals of the mode of their conception, the potential impact of these changes may be limited.

Second, disclosure of identifying information about one's genetic (half-)siblings is (understandably) centred around mutual consent. Consequently, if the other parties are unaware of the circumstances of their conception, or do not place significance on knowledge of their wider genetic origins, then a donor-conceived person's search for information and/or contact could be frustrated at an early stage.

Third, the 2008 Act contains mixed messages about the importance of genetic ties. Genetic links between donor-conceived half-siblings are accorded significance and information sharing will be facilitated through the Register. However, others - notably the donors' 'legal children' - who in genetic terms are equally 'related' - fall outside the facilitative processes of the statute. Thus these ties are rendered unknowable unless the donors choose to make them known (although it is possible that the use of social networking and other genealogical tools may provide other avenues of information in the future) (2).

This links to the fourth point: the limitations on access to information seem to protect various interests at different junctures. As donor-conceived individuals cannot seek access to any information about their gamete donors until they are 16, the 2008 Act seems to retain most of the protection accorded to recipient(s) and their family(ies) originally provided by donor anonymity. Hence, the purported spectre of the donor infringing the family life of the recipients is limited, not least as donor-conceived individuals cannot seek identifying information (where applicable) until they reach the age of majority. Therefore, the possibility of a donor-conceived individual seeking to meet with their donor(s) appears to be precluded during childhood. An interesting question is raised regarding families where the same donor was used to conceive two or more siblings, where the eldest child might seek access to this information and/or to contact the donor whilst his or her siblings have not yet reached majority; yet the explanatory notes are silent on this issue. The 'protection' afforded to the recipient family may therefore be more vulnerable to challenge than initially thought.

However, as outlined above, with regard to seeking information about one's half-siblings, the statute makes clear that identifying information will not extend to the donor's legal children. This points to a protection of the donor's 'legal' family, and especially his or her children, from possible contact by those who happen to be their genetic (half-)siblings but legal strangers. This is likely to reflect a concern to protect donors, notably their privacy, and to ensure continued donation.

Fifth, the provision of information is subject to the discretion of the HFEA in 'special circumstances' where there is evidence that it will lead to the identification of others who ought not to be identified. There is potential protection of the anonymity of both donors and donor-conceived persons here, but until this is tested it is difficult to envisage how this provision will be interpreted and applied. Nonetheless, its inclusion in the legislation highlights the state's continued interest in controlling the information flow about and between these parties.

Therefore, at first glance, the 2008 Act indicates the facilitation of a wider disclosure of information, both non-identifying and identifying, than under the previous legislation. However, examination of its provisions illustrates that in practice this may fall short of the mark. It remains to be seen whether the discretion granted to the HFEA will be utilised in ways that deny, protect or promote further knowledge of specific donor-conceived individual's wider genetic heritage (3).


1) Identifying information will only be given where gametes were donated at a time when it was a requirement to provide this data to resulting children, or where the donor has subsequently voluntarily relinquished their anonymity.
|  27 October 2021
2) This assumes contact is made between the donor-conceived individual(s) and the donor, and that the donor has, in fact, 'legal' children of his or her own (it also assumes these were conceived by the use of the donor's own gametes and were not adopted or indeed donor-conceived).
|  27 October 2021
3) Some of the ideas here are explored further in Jones, C., 'The Identification of 'Parents' and 'Siblings': New Possibilities under the Reformed Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act' in Wallbank, J., Choudhry, S. and Herring, J., Rights, Gender and Family Law (Routledge-Cavendish, GlassHouse, forthcoming 2009).
|  27 October 2021
11 January 2010 - by Antony Starza-Allen 
A British woman has travelled to Denmark to undergo donor insemination after the fertility clinic where she had been receiving treatment in the UK ran out of sperm, BBC News reports. Single and 41, Abby, who is using a pseudonym, made the decision after three unsuccessful insemination attempts in the UK using donated sperm. Once the clinic informed her there was no more sperm available she contacted the Danish clinic. Following treatment there she gave birth to a...
17 November 2009 - by Professor Margaret Somerville 
A recent article by journalist, Allison Cross, described how a shortage of Canadian donor sperm could be prompting women and their partners to turn to the Internet to find free donors: 'Many of these people want 'do-it-yourself' donor insemination, without intervention by doctors'...
9 November 2009 - by Dr Jennifer Speirs 
Professor Lisa Jardine sounded tired. Contributing to a BBC Radio 4 Analysis programme on 26 October, the chair of the UK's Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) declared that she was 'positively nostalgic' for secrecy and discretion....
5 October 2009 - by MacKenna Roberts 
Beginning from last Thursday, new disclosure laws for donor-conceived individuals and gamete/embryo donors came into force which will broaden access to donor genetic information. The provisions were enacted together with the vast majority of the new Human Fertilisation & Embryology Act 2008, approved by Parliament last year and aimed at updating its predecessor 1990 statute to be more inline with contemporary liberal attitudes and advances in reproductive technolog...
6 July 2009 - by Antony Starza-Allen 
An acute shortage of donor sperm is diminishing the capacity of the UK's public and private health sectors to treat infertility, resulting in growing concern and lengthening waiting lists at clinics. The shortage is widely attributed to the removal, in 2005, of entitlement to donor anonymity. The Progress Educational Trust, with support from the Royal Society of Medicine and the British Fertility Society (BFS) staged a panel discussion on Thursday 25 June 2009 entitled 'Banking Crisis - what ...
29 June 2009 - by Dr Alan Thornhill 
Long before the current commercial banking crisis, the UK suffered another banking crisis - that of donor sperm shortages. The difference is that the sperm bank crisis is not global. Instead it is quintessentially British - full of principle and good intention but sadly resulting from compromise and inconsistency. Only the areas of inconsistency are consistent: the removal of anonymity, donor expenses, screening and selection guidelines and the limitations on use of individual donors. Taken s...
15 June 2009 - by Antony Starza-Allen 
The entitlement to anonymity of UK sperm and egg donors ended in 2005, a development that has been welcomed by those who spent long years campaigning for it, and criticised by those who blame it for a current shortage of donor sperm and eggs. Because this change in law applies only prospectively, it remains difficult - if not impossible - for previous generations of donor-conceived individuals to locate their genetic parents and other genetic relatives. Initiatives such as UK DonorLink and it...
8 June 2009 - by Laura Witjens 
Following a change in the law that came into force on 1 April 2005, British people conceived using donated egg, sperm or embryos can ask for identifying information about the donor when they reach the age of 18. Here Laura Witjens, egg donor and mother of two, writes about why she elected to remove her anonymity and potentially become identifiable to any children born from her donation....
6 August 2007 - by MacKenna Roberts 
A UK all party parliamentary committee has recommended that children born through fertility treatments involving donated sperm or eggs should have this information recorded on their birth certificates. The MPs and Peers stated that children have a right to know of their donated biological parentage and believe...
to add a Comment.

By posting a comment you agree to abide by the BioNews terms and conditions

Syndicate this story - click here to enquire about using this story.