I'd like to start by saying that we want to dispense with the word 'children'. Adults conceived by DI are fed up with being referred to in this way and our teenagers don't like it either. We prefer to use the term 'people'. You may like to consider if this gives an opportunity to think about people conceived as a result of gamete donation in a different way.

Why people need to know about the fact of their donor assisted conception

I'd like to start by asking you, how you would feel if you were deprived by others, who you trusted, of information you later thought would have been important to you, particularly if, in order not to tell you, they were obliged not merely to fail to pass on some interesting news, but positively to mislead you. Having found out, you would need to understand the reasons why they felt justified in withholding if you were not to be resentful and even angry. You would probably need to accept that they had done this in the honest belief that the truth was something so potentially damaging that it was in your best interests that you should be protected from it, and also that you not merely sympathised and understood their dilemma but agreed with the decision they had taken. In contrast, our 17 year old son said the other night, as part of a discussion on these issues, that the information about his origins is not important to him because he knows about it - it would be very important if we hadn't told him (and by inference, he were to find out by accident).

Lack of respect for individual autonomy
But not giving information manipulates and limits the choices open to the deceived person. In our view it represents a lack of respect for the autonomy, and ultimately the rights of the individual. Historically - "We know what is best for you", a 'welfarist' approach has been adopted by governments, doctors and other in authority, but in the western world greater value is now given to individual human rights - the right to decide what is in one's own interest - as opposed to state, community or parental control. The 1989 Children Act asserts the position of children as individuals with rights and emphasises parents responsibilities towards their children. The Network mirrors this position, believing that sharing of information about origins with our children is part of responsible parenthood.

Dr Phil Fennell the human rights specialist from Cardiff Law School who spoke at the recent HFEA conference noted that parents' rights to secrecy would not be considered as weighty as the rights of a child.

Why genetic information is important
Of course in order for the information to matter, it must be significant. The fundamental position of the Network on the question of the significance of information about origins is as follows. We believe that our children have a right to the information that the genetic connections in their family are not as they would otherwise assume. We also believe that being a 'dad' or a 'mum' is a social and not a genetic role. In holding these apparently paradoxical positions, we choose to put the everyday emphasis on social roles but without denying the importance of genetic make-up.

This brings us to the good old Nature/Nurture debate. No doubt the arguments on this will rage for a long time yet but the most widely accepted position, as I understand it now, is that we all come with a kind of genetic blueprint which gives us predispositions for certain character traits, temperament and talents. These are then constantly being modified by the environment and upbringing we have, so that an adult of about 25 is the result of a complex interplay between genetic endowment and the nutrition, surroundings, care, stimulation and teaching that have been provided or withheld during the formative years. The perspective taken by the Network on openness mirrors this position. We acknowledge the role of the donor in giving our children a genetic blueprint which may well predispose them in ways which are different from either parent. However, in common with any other parents we also take responsibility for the nurturing of our children, guiding them in taking advantage of their attributes and helping them curb their less favourable traits. We believe that the genetic component cannot and should not be ignored. It is significant information, but at the same time we put great emphasis on the the importance of warmth and honesty in strong family relationships in protecting children from what has been referred to as 'genealogical bewilderment'. In this way physical looks or interests which seem very different from parents can be accounted for by children and hopefully they will not have to go through the experience of feeling 'odd' or 'different' because the fact of their genetic origins will have been known and integrated into their lives. They know they 'belong' despite their genetic difference. And in the 21st Century when family connections are becoming increasingly fragmented, social belonging is what we all need.

Another reason for sharing information with our children is the potential

Damaging effects of shock disclosure
The recently published research by Turner and Coyle in Vol 15 of Human Reproduction gives evidence about the damaging effects of the disclosure on individuals who found out in their late teens or later that they had been conceived through donor insemination. They report that the individuals experienced profound negative feelings of shock of disclosure and feelings of deceit and mistrust. They reported feelings of discontinuity within the family and a lowering of self esteem; for them the lack of disclosure undermined the principles of honesty and trust within families, and it is suggested that this lack of trust might be replicated in their own relationships

So what are the risks of disclosure? From a strictly utilitarian perspective, let's think for a moment how likely is it that this risk will occur? First, the individuals conceived after August 1991will have the right to consult the HFEA register at any time in their lives if they have any suspicions about their origins. And we'll have a look in a minute at how these suspicions might arise. Parents concealing information about their children's origins will have to practise a lifelong act of deception. They will also have to ensure that no one else that they have told the truth to ever discloses it - and the evidence suggests that most of those who intend not to tell have actually told at least one other person. In order to be sure their secret pact stays secure they will have to ensure that their marriage or relationship remains stable until the day they both die (or at least that the secret survives a break-up), and who can guarantee either of those?

A caller to our Helpline last year was frantic because her clinic (deliberately chosen to be 100 miles from her home) was determined to keep the records of her two DI conceptions for 50 years. The caller would have liked them to be destroyed. She was resolute that her two children, now older teenagers, should not discover the truth of their origins. Almost as a, by the way, she told me that she had twice had cancer over the years since her children were born and she was sure this was due to the strain of keeping the secret, but as far as she was concerned it was all worth it!

This takes us beyond mere risk analysis to the Effect on quality of parent/child relationship We have learned from Clare Murray's research that the children of non-telling parents in their study seemed normal in every measure of development and psychological adjustment; and that their families seemed warmer and more involved with the children than those families where children were conceived in the conventional fashion. But this is a small study of self-selected parents and their children are only just entering adolescence. As a parent of media conscious teenagers I cannot imagine how I would handle the constant presence of issues to do with genes and inherited diseases in the press and on TV, or biology homework about reproduction, assisted conception and genetic traits in families, if the knowledge of our children's DI conception was not an everyday fact in our house. I cannot imagine lying to two young people , who at this crucial time of seeking their own individual identities, need parents they can trust to be straight and honest with them, providing a solid backdrop to their questioning and experimentation with life. Undoubtedly the children in the City University study will have gained resilience through strong attachments and high quality relationships with their parents. Providing the circumstances are good, they may well be able to accommodate the facts of their conception explained later rather than earlier, without serious psychological damage. But why risk a rift in relationships at a vulnerable time when early sharing of information could lead to children growing up never knowing a time when they 'didn't know'. The other issue is the impact of keeping secrets over time: the silences or glances between parents when anything to do with inherited characteristics comes up. The lack of comment, or the lack of response to remarks made by others (common in most families, particularly at times of family gatherings) about a child looking or behaving 'just like Auntie Jean'. What is a young person to make of this? Psychological literature going back many years suggests that big secrets felt as an atmosphere or 'presence' in families do not provide an emotionally healthy climate in which to bring up children. It may be easy to 'forget' a child's origins when they are young and provide a relaxed, loving presence in the home, but keeping this up under the alert and critical eyes and ears of teenagers must be a palpable strain which is bound to be felt by all at some level, even if it does not give everyone cancer!

So Is disclosure of an untraceable connection also (or equally) damaging? It is sometimes suggested that people would be even more damaged and confused by the inability to trace an anonymous donor (if they were told) than they would by the risk (or actuality) of keeping the conception a secret. But it is clear from the increasing number of adult offspring who were told or found out from late teenage years onwards that it was the deception about their origins that hurt and disturbed them, not the fact of their DI conception.

In a recent interview with a journalist, our daughter Susannah age 14 was scathing about families where they keep the reality of their children's conception secret. "I can't imagine a parent carrying that around with them. It seems so immature. People want to be normal - whatever that is - but we are a perfectly normal family". She went on to say about us, "If they'd kept it (her DI conception) secret, I think I would have despised them. They've always been honest with me, even with the tiniest things. And with something that big - I would have hated it if they'd kept it a secret and then I'd found out".