The Donation of Gametes and the Anonimity of the Donors


A study of the public opinion in Bulgaria in regard to the possibility of the adult children, created by gamete donation, to learn who their biological parents are was made. This investigation was an on-line survey. The participants in the study are individuals between 18 and 65 years of age - Internet users. The survey was included into different web sites and this enlarged the number of respondents (up to 994) and 85% of them were persons in fertile age - from 18 to 43 years. The answers of the respondents in relation of the demographic features - gender, age, education, family status and place of living were studied. The data were calculated with the special statistical product SPSS 16. A critical level of significance 0.05 was used. Results: Almost half (47%) of the respondents agree that the children born from gamete donors have the right to know at adulthood their biological parents, 35% disagree and 18% have no opinion. The demographic features influencing the answers of the question are the gender, the education and the family status of the respondents (p < 0.05). Most of the men (60%) consider that the children have the right to know their biological parents while only 44% of the women approve. The highest support of the idea about contact between the donors and their genetic off springs show the people with secondary education (56%) and the most skeptical are the respondents with high non-medical education (40%). The family status influences the opinion of the respondents - the approval of the married and unmarried is 38% and 60%, respectively.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • 1. ESHRE Task Force on Ethics and Law III Gamete and embryo donation - Human Reproduction, 2002; 17(5): 1407-1408.

  • 2. McWhinnie A. Gamete donation and anonymity, Hum Reprod, 2001; 16(5): 807-817.

  • 3. Hill M (2002) Sperm donors “want to keep anonymity”. BBC News. Available from

  • 4. Brett S, Sacranie RR, Thomas GE, and Rajkhowa R. Can we improve recruitment of oocyte donors with loss of donor anonymity? A hospital-based survey. Hum Fertil (Camb) 2008; 11: 101-107.

  • 5. Janssens P. M. W, Simons A. H. M, van Kooij R. J, Blokzijl E, and Dunselman G. A. J. A new Dutch Law regulating provision of identifying information of donors to offspring: background, content and impact. Hum. Reprod, 2006; 21(4): 852-856.

  • 6. Lycett E, Daniels K, Curson R, and Golombok S. School-aged children of donor insemination: a study of parents’ disclosure patterns. Hum. Reprod., 2005; 20(3): 810-819.

  • 7. Krastev R, Mitev V. Law and bioethics of the assisted reproduction in the European Union, Sofia, ed. Iztok-Zapad, 2014, p.29.

  • 8. Daniels K, and Lalos O. The Swedish Insemination Act and the availability of donors. Hum. Reprod, 1995; 12: 1871-1874.

  • 9. Fichou K. (AFP) (Oct 8, 2011) Sperm donors father huge “families” in US, Canada Available at

  • 10. Pennings, G., The “double track” policy for donor anonymity. Hum. Reprod., 1997; 12; 2839-2844.

  • 11. Frith, L, Blyth, E., Farrand, A., UK gamete donors’ reflections on the removal of anonymity: implications for recruitement. Hum. Reprod, 2007; 22(6): 1675-1680.

  • 12. Skoog Svanberg, A., Lampic, C., Bergh, T., Lundkvist, Ö. Public opinion regarding oocyte donation in Sweden. Human Reproduction 2003a; 18(5): 1107-1114.

  • 13. Skoog Svanberg, A., Lampic, C., Bergh, T., Lundkvist, Ö. Characterization of potential oocyte donors in Sweden. Human Reproduction 2003b; 18(10):2210-2215.

  • 14. Isaksson, S., Skoog Svanberg, A., Sydsjö, G., Thurin-Kjellberg, A., Karlström, P. O., Solensten, N.-G., Lampic, C. Two decades after legislation on identifiable donors in Sweden: are recipient couples ready to be open about using gamete donation? Human Reproduction 2011; 26(.4): 853-860.

  • 15. Minai, J., Suzuki, K., Takeda, Y., Hoshi, K., Yamagata, Z. There are gender differences in attitudes towards surrogacy when information on this technique is provided. European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology 2007; 132: 193-199.

  • 16.

  • 17.

  • 18. De la Fuente Fonnest I., Finn Søndergaard, Gert Fonnest and Agnette Vedsted-Jacobsen, Attitudes among health care professionals on the ethics of assisted reproductive technologies and legal abortion. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand, 2000; 79: 49-53.

  • 19. Papaharitou S, Nakopoulou E., Moraitou M., Hatzimouratidis K. and Hatzichristou D. Reproductive health and midwives: Does occupational status differentiate their attitudes on assisted reproduction technologies from those of the general population? Human Reproduction 2007; 22(7): 2033-2039.

  • 20. YouGov Assisted Reproduction Survey On behalf of Progress Educational Trust Summ ary report, novembre 2006.

  • 21. Brewaeys, A., De Bruyn, J. K., Louwe, L. A., Helmerhorst, F. M. Anonymous or identity-registered sperm donors? A study of Dutch recipients’ choices. Hum. Reprod, 2005; 20(3): 820-824.


Journal + Issues