title: Gamete donors' expectations and experiences of contact with their donor offspring.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  What are the expectations and experiences of anonymous gamete donors about contact with their donor offspring?
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Rather than consistently wanting to remain distant from their donor offspring, donors' expectations and experiences of contact with donor offspring ranged from none to a close personal relationship.
  
  
  BACKGROUND
  Donor conception is part of assisted reproduction in many countries, but little is known about its continuing influence on gamete donors' lives.
  
  
  METHODS
  A qualitative research model appropriate for understanding participants' views was employed; semi-structured interviews were conducted during January-March 2013.
  
  
  METHODS
  Before 1998, gamete donors in Victoria, Australia, were subject to evolving legislation that allowed them to remain anonymous or (from 1988) to consent to the release of identifying information. An opportunity to increase knowledge of donors' expectations and experiences of contact with their donor offspring recently arose in Victoria when a recommendation was made to introduce mandatory identification of donors on request from their donor offspring, with retrospective effect. Pre-1998 donors were invited through an advertising campaign to be interviewed about their views, experiences and expectations; 36 sperm donors and 6 egg donors participated.
  
  
  RESULTS
  This research is unusual in achieving participation by donors who would not normally identify themselves to researchers or government inquiries. Qualitative thematic analysis revealed that most donors did not characterize themselves as parents of their donor offspring. Donors' expectations and experiences of contact with donor offspring ranged from none to a close personal relationship.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  It is not possible to establish whether participants were representative of all pre-1998 donors.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Anonymous donors' needs and desires are not homogeneous; policy and practice should be sensitive and responsive to a wide range of circumstances and preferences. Decisions made to restrict or facilitate contact or the exchange of information have ramifications for donors as well as for donor-conceived people.
  
  
  BACKGROUND
  The study was funded by the Victorian Department of Health. The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.
  
  
  BACKGROUND
  Not applicable.
authors.affiliation: Jean Hailes Research Unit, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne 3004, Australia.
authors.forename: Maggie
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Kirkman
authors.forename: Kate
authors.initials: K
authors.lastname: Bourne
authors.forename: Jane
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Fisher
authors.forename: Louise
authors.initials: L
authors.lastname: Johnson
authors.forename: Karin
authors.initials: K
authors.lastname: Hammarberg
mesh_terms: D003219:Confidentiality; D030881:Disclosure; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D007316:Insemination, Artificial, Heterologous / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence; D008297:Male; D018587:Oocyte Donation; D013094:Spermatozoa; D014019:Tissue Donors / Q000523:psychology*; D014739:Victoria
keywords: donor anonymity; donor-assisted conception; egg donors; psychosocial; sperm donors