Page URL:

Nuffield Council on Bioethics Call for Evidence: Disclosure and Donor Conception

16 April 2012
By Dr John Appleby and Dr Lucy Blake
John B. Appleby and Dr Lucy Blake work at Centre for Family Research, University of Cambridge
Appeared in BioNews 652
The Nuffield Council on Bioethics has launched an inquiry (1) on the ethics of disclosure in families with children conceived using donated reproductive tissue (i.e. eggs, sperm, or embryos). In spring 2013 the Council will publish a report on its findings, making policy recommendations where appropriate. This call for evidence is part of a long history of debate on the topic of disclosure in the UK and runs parallel to international debates in the USA, Canada (reported in BioNews 645), Australia (reported in BioNews 651), and Europe.

Even though the consultation has only just begun, we'd like to take this opportunity to consider some of the issues (some more obvious than others) that may arise in the responses.

We think it's likely that this call for evidence will expose the fact there is still a great deal of empirical research left to do, particularly in the case of embryo donation and surrogacy families. There is also little known about how donor offspring who have been aware of their donor conception from a young age will feel about their donor origins in adolescence and beyond.

Nuffield has the difficult task of working with a body of evidence which, for the most part, only extends across part of the lives of donor conceived individuals. Surprisingly, this detail is often overlooked in ethical discussions.

Of the ethics literature that is available and relevant to this consultation, only a limited sample draws on up-to-date empirical research. Therefore, one of the most prominent challenges for the Council will be conducting a sensitive ethical analysis of the available empirical evidence.

Indeed, the task of bridging the gap between ethical theory and empirical evidence, as many bioethicists will attest, is easier said than done. The difficulty in aligning the two is compounded by the fact that little of the empirical evidence clearly and consistently describes the participant's moral and ethical claims. Some participants are very descriptive when discussing how they have been either morally wronged or benefitted as a result of disclosure, but often the ethical content of their testimony is obscure or needs sensitive interpretation.

Therefore, articulating ethical perspectives on disclosure will be a complex task, but one that has the potential to move this debate forward. In particular, this will be useful in dealing with the issue of how children's welfare should be prioritised - and the different ways we can conceptualise the welfare of the child.

The Council will likely find that the available empirical and ethical literature is comprised of many international points of view. However, normative attitudes towards disclosure change across borders, just as they have changed across time. It will be necessary for the Council to keep in mind that the evidence of the ethics of disclosure may very well be relative to whichever country or countries each empirical study was conducted in.

Finally, one of the most overlooked aspects of any debate on disclosure is the ethical importance of how challenging disclosure may be for parents. Evidence about how parents ethically cope with their disclosure decisions is something of considerable value to this consultation.

It would also be helpful for the working party to articulate the kinds of support services that would help families (this is addressed in question 11). The Council should consider what kinds of challenges or difficulties might stand in the way of any parent, counsellor or doctor trying to enact the best practice prescriptive measures relating to disclosure. Keeping the above considerations in mind might help ensure that Nuffield's ethical investigation delivers recommendations of practical significance.

Usually, ethical debates on disclosure are plagued by having too little evidence, not too much. But, this call for evidence will undoubtedly benefit from a rich and varied audience of responders, be they academics, physicians, counsellors, or donor-conceived families themselves (both those who conceived prior to the 2005 change in the law and after).

The Council has set out on a challenging task which will hopefully result in a comprehensive, sensitive report which will be of use for policy makers, professionals and those interested in the ethics of disclosure, both in the UK and internationally.

1) Donor conception: ethical aspects of information disclosure
Nuffield Council on Bioethics |  28 November 2021
23 March 2015 - by Dr Rachel Montgomery 
On 15 March 2015, the Nuffield Council on Bioethics held its annual public lecture, which this year featured political scientist and philosopher Dr Amy Gutmann, chair of the US Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues...
22 April 2013 - by Dr Wybo Dondorp 
The Nuffield Council report rightly rejects the call to pressurising parents into compliance, as this abstract ideal of openness disallows them to make their own moral judgements about what is best in their situation and for their family...
18 June 2012 - by Dr Geoff Watts 
The Nuffield Council on Bioethics has published a new report: 'Novel techniques for the prevention of mitochondrial DNA disorders: an ethical review'. Dr Geoff Watts, chair of the working party that wrote it, offers some personal reflections on a few of its key conclusions...
8 May 2012 - by Sarah Wood-Heath 
There have been a number of high profile cases of late involving disputes within alternative family structures. Primarily these concern fathers or known donors seeking more of a relationship with their child than they originally wished for. However, another interesting and sadly increasing area we are witnessing is the breakdown of relationships in two mother lesbian parent families...
2 April 2012 - by Dr Ruth Shidlo 
The recent recommendations of the Law Reform Committee in Victoria, Australia, are expected to gain bipartisan support in Parliament and lead the way for reform. They represent a world first in establishing the right of donor-conceived people to retrospective access to identifying donor information...
27 February 2012 - by Dr Marilyn Crawshaw and Walter Merricks 
It is now eight years since the HFEA first issued guidance to UK licensed treatment centres to respond as fully as possible to patients' requests for non-identifying donor information...
30 September 2011 - by Dr Kamal Ahuja 
The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) has already made two decisions following its public consultation and review of gamete donation policies in the UK: first, intra-familial gamete donation can continue as before (subject to certain provisions); and second, the number of families which a single donor might help create remains limited to ten. The bigger question on compensation and benefit in kind to donors will not be answered until later this year...
8 August 2011 - by Professor Naomi Cahn and Wendy Kramer 
The largest study to date of donor-conceived people has just been published in Human Reproduction. Its findings show the need to address two different effects of anonymous donating: first, when should children find out that their parents used donor sperm or eggs; and second, should children ever find out the identity of their donors?...
6 June 2011 - by Professor Eric Blyth and Dr Marilyn Crawshaw 
The regulation of assisted human reproduction in Canada has had a long and tortuous history. Twenty one years after a Royal Commission appointed by the federal government recommended legislation (1), and following several failed attempts to get legislation through the Canadian parliament, the Assisted Human Reproduction Act 2004 came into force (2)...
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.