New proposals to change donor anonymity laws may increase inconsistency and unfairness, experts warn

New proposals to change the law protecting the anonymity of sperm and egg donors in the UK “would increase inconsistency and arguably unfairness” for many donor-conceived people, two experts in the field have warned.

Last month, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) proposed amending legislation to enable the removal of donor anonymity from the birth of a donor-conceived child.

In their piece, published by The University of Manchester’s policy engagement unit Policy@Manchester, Dr Redhead and Dr Frith argue that donor-conceived people already have significantly different rights to information about their sperm or egg donor – depending on the date of their conception – and the law change recommended by the HFEA would increase these inconsistencies.

The ConnecteDNA research team, led by Dr Frith, is examining the use of direct-to-consumer genetic testing (DTCGT) by donor-conceived adults, donors and parents of donor-conceived people.

The academics write: “The HFEA has concluded that the integrity of the current legislative framework has been undermined by the impact of DTCGT. It has therefore proposed that the law should be amended to make donors identifiable from the birth of any child born from their donation.”

Currently, they explain, those conceived by donors who donated before April 2005 have no access to identifying information about their donor. Those conceived after this date can apply for it only when they become adults. Further: “The HFEA has not recommended a retrospective change in the law. This means that people born from donations made before 1 April 2005 will still have no legal route to access identifying information about their donor.”

Dr Redhead and Dr Frith observe that the HFEA’s Legislative Reform Advisory Group proposed consideration of the retrospective removal of donor anonymity. “This approach was taken in Victoria, Australia, where, in 2017, a reformed law granted all donor-conceived individuals the right to access identifying information about their donor, irrespective of when they were conceived,” they write. “If the UK were to adopt a similar approach, addressing the practical implications for individuals conceived before the HFEA register’s establishment would be necessary.”

They continue: "The ConnecteDNA study has found that connections with donor siblings can be equally or more important to donor-conceived people. The desire to connect with same-donor families and siblings during a donor-conceived person’s childhood is a key driver for the use of DTCGT by parents of donor-conceived children.”

The academics point out that the HFEA’s Donor Sibling Link service (DSL) allows donor siblings to exchange contact details from the age of 18 by mutual consent. They add: “Noting the importance to our participants of connections with donor siblings, we recommend that the Government consider reducing the age of access to the DSL.”

The University of Manchester experts conclude: “We recommend that a Law Commission project is established to explore how best to manage donor information in the UK, balancing the interests of donors, parents by donor conception and donor-conceived people, whatever the date of their conception. The UK Government should consider any findings and recommendations from this when reviewing further legislation or reform.”