While using a known donor can provide choice and flexibility, it can also involve several risks.
Disagreements or disputes often arise when the donor’s role is not clearly discussed, or people’s expectations change over time. This can lead to conflict and relationship breakdowns.
There are also fewer safeguards when donations occur outside of fertility clinics. These donations can increase health and safety risks for donors, recipients, and donor-conceived children.
Breakdown of the risks
Unclear expectations of the donor’s role
Sometimes donors and recipients do not clearly discuss and agree what their expectations are in terms of the donor’s ongoing role. When this is not discussed, there may be a misalignment between what the donor wants and what the recipients want, which leaves the relationship at risk of dispute or disappointment.
The role that the donor will have in the child’s life is a common point of misalignment, especially about the frequency and quality of contact. This often becomes a source of disappointment for donors or creates tension between donors and recipients.
Hunter donated to Maeve and Jackie. He assumed he would have a significant role in the child’s life, however, did not discuss this with the women before conception. When Maeve was pregnant, Hunter tried to discuss his role as the child’s ‘father’. Maeve and Jackie told him that he was a donor, not the child’s father. Hunter was hurt and disappointment when they did not allow him to have contact with the child after the birth.
Changing expectations of the donor’s role
Even when agreements about the donor’s role are made, people’s expectations can change over time. This can also lead to disappointment or tension.
Some donors may initially agree to have limited involvement, however, later want a more significant role. This may be driven by emotional attachment to the child or as their self-identity shifts from ‘donor’ to ‘father’.
The potential for people’s desires to change highlights the complex nature of these arrangements. It is important to ensure open communication and align expectations to maintain positive relationships between all involved.
Before conception, Chloe and Harper agreed that their child would visit donor Aiden three times per year. It took twelve months to conceive via self-insemination. During this time, Aiden regularly visited their home. After the child was born, he asked to see the child more regularly. Chloe thinks that Aiden misinterpreted their hospitality during conception as a basis for greater involvement.
Lack of regulation when using informal donations
Donations made through fertility clinics are subject to regulatory requirements that do not apply to informal donations, such as self-insemination.
All clinic-based donors, whether known or unknown, must meet health, genetic and counselling requirements, and may be excluded if they do not pass these assessments.
Sperm donated at a clinic also undergoes rigorous screening and quarantine to minimise infection and genetic risks. While informal donors may undertake STI testing, sperm cannot be quarantined outside of clinics, and genetic testing is uncommon. This increases potential health risks for recipients and donor-conceived children.
Clinics are also subject to limits on the number of families a donor can assist. In Victoria, this is capped at 10 families, including the donor’s family. These limits cannot be effectively monitored or enforced in informal arrangements, creating risks for donor-conceived people, including the possibility of unknowingly forming relationships with genetic relatives in the future.
Legal risks
Risk of coercion when using informal donations
Informal donations can involve risks for recipients, particularly when safeguards are not present. Some people connect with potential donors online and take precautions such as meeting in public places or preferring clinic-based conception. However, these measures do not always eliminate vulnerability. In some cases, individuals exploit people seeking to start a family for their own advantage.
This can include attempts to persuade potential recipients to conceive via sexual intercourse. Such behaviours can be characterised as sexual coercion or abuse, including pressuring recipients at the last minute, using manipulation to push for sex, or engaging in inappropriate or abusive behaviour online.
Conceiving via sexual intercourse also carries additional legal risks for both the donor and recipients. It can blur the boundaries between a donor arrangement and an intimate partner relationship. This can increase the risk that the donor may later seek legal recognition as a parent.
This content was adapted from a discussion paper by Better Pride and the Centre for Better Relationships. To read the paper in full, click here.