The Donor Conception Network welcomes the Department of Health's consultation on moves to change the arrangements for future donor assisted conception treatment so that donors would no longer always be anonymous. This raises complex issues that need to be considered carefully and a period of open consultation with all concerned is important.

What is the Donor Conception Network?
The 650 families in the network act as a self-help group to support families with children conceived by donated gametes (eggs, sperm or embryos) and those contemplating treatment, in considering the longer term issues that may face them or their children as they grow up. We have been in existence since 1993. Our members believe that children need to grow up with the knowledge of how they were conceived, and that secrecy over such an important issue as one's origin is an insecure basis for a lasting and loving family relationship.

How did anonymous donation arise?
When donor (sperm) insemination started on an organised basis in the 1950's, it was assumed that all parties, the couple with the infertile man, the donors and the doctors, would want to keep everything totally secret, and that no one would ever know the truth.

How have things changed?
Now people are less embarrassed by infertility, and it is more usual that parents expect to tell their children the facts about how they were conceived. We have also learned from adoption practice how disrespectful it is to people conceived in this way to conceal the truth about their origins. In any event children conceived after August 1991 will, when 18, be able to check with the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. DNA tests might also reveal that they were not genetically related to both parents. A number of individuals conceived in secret 30 to 50 years ago have found out the truth and have been severely shocked, not so much by the revelation, but by the fact that their parents misled them.

What may our children feel?
Most of the children born as a result of donated gamete treatment and now growing up will be unable to trace their donors since the donors were given assurances that their identities would not be revealed. Whilst as parents we seek to prepare our children for life in this situation, it is unrealistic to expect that some people conceived this way may not feel frustrated by the inability to trace their origins. It is impossible to forecast how strong such feelings may be, or for how many this issue will be at all important. Even if this is not a major issue for most, it would be unwise to ignore the possibility that it will be strongly felt by some. Looking forward to an "information age" where individual human rights will be tested both in courts and other contexts, it seems likely that the question of access to origins information would need to be decided authoritatively before long.

Will donors still come forward?
Set against this is the need to maintain donor recruitment. If a sudden change in policy led to a drastic fall in the number of donors prepared to come forward, this would be undesirable. If the shortage of sperm became so acute that those seeking treatment were willing to risk being treated with sperm acquired through unregulated sources, possibly from abroad, the whole purpose of the new regulation would remain unfulfilled. The consultation (and, we may hope, the media coverage) needs to approach the issue in a way that does not unduly alarm or deter existing or potential donors from considering donation.

A new climate?
In order to maintain appropriate levels of donor recruitment, a climate needs to be encouraged in which gamete donation is seen as an open, responsible and altruistic activity, where donors are rewarded with esteem and recognition as well as appropriate compensation for expenses incurred. This is already beginning to happen with egg donation. It is important that donors understand that the decision to donate will have an important impact on the people who receive the donation, on anyone born as a result, as well as on the donors themselves and their own families. Potential donors should be prepared for and relaxed about the possibility of being contacted later in life.

Why not make it retrospective to cover all those already born?
There is an obvious potential clash between the claims of those donors who were given assurances of anonymity and the claims of those created by their donations to full information about their origins. Very full careful consideration would be necessary before any compulsory change could be made retrospective. It would at least be desirable to put in place a system of voluntary registration by past donors of their willingness to be contacted, or for certain information about them to be released. In the meantime it is important that origins data be carefully maintained and stored, so that if individual donors became more willing to supply information, the records would then be available.

20th December 2001