Donor anonymity in human reproduction: An ethical and legal analysis

Introduction. The development of gamete donation programs and the rapid increase in the number of offspring born from assisted reproductive technologies have raised questions about access to biological identity information. This ethical and legal dilemma is linked to physiological risks (consanguinity), psychological risks (self-identification and defining kinship), and social risks (perceptions by others), and requires the attention of the medical community as the primary actor.

Aim. To provide an ethical and legal examination of different approaches to reproductive donor anonymity, comparing models of open and anonymous donation. Special attention is given to the risks associated with de-anonymizing donors and to analyzing limitations and advantages of each approach.

Methods. The study included a comparative legal analysis, followed by an ethical analysis of assisted reproductive technologies, and concluded with a qualitative risk assessment.

Results. The main donation models are identified and described: anonymous donation, the use of biomaterial from a known donor (a relative or friend of the recipient), and open donation, which implies potential access to identifying information about the donor. The choice of model is determined by the political and legal framework and cultural norms within a given society. The Russian Federation features a three-tiered donor model that allows the recipient to decide on anonymity themselves. In this context, reproductive medicine clinics play a crucial role in shaping openness policies. Ethical contradictions are reflected in scholarly debates. Advocates of open donation appeal to the value of birth-related information for the child’s genetic and psychological well-being. Free access to donor information presupposes family institution transformation towards greater variability of family forms and a reinterpretation of links between genetic and social kinship. On the other hand, researchers express concern about how this transformation may affect individual families seeking to preserve their own normativity. The final section outlines the main risks of de-anonymizing donors: a decline in donor numbers, psychological pressure on donors, and intra-family conflicts. Existing legislative mechanisms to mitigate these risks are described.

Conclusion. There is no global consensus regarding the ethical and legal interpretation of donor anonymity in human reproduction, yet the growing number of donation programs suggests that their anonymity is likely to be removed. To date, the scientific community has not developed a unified position on this issue, differing primarily in two key arguments: the prioritization of interests and the impact on family institution.

1. Cowden M. “No Harm, no Foul”: A Child’s Right to Know their Genetic Parents. International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family. 2012;26(1):102–126. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/lawfam/ebr021

2. Blyth E, Crawshaw M, Frith L, Jones C. Donor-conceived people’s views and experiences of their genetic origins: a critical analysis of the research evidence. J Law Med. 2012;19(4):769–789.

3. Gong D, Liu YL, Zheng Z, Tian YF, Li Z. An overview on ethical issues about sperm donation. Asian J Androl. 2009;11(6):645–652. https://doi.org/10.1038/aja.2009.61

4. Lukasiewic R, Ferraro AV. Anonymity and openness in gamete donation: the russian policy on the third-party reproduction. Journal of Liberty and International Affairs, Institute for Research and European Studies — Bitola. 2021;7(3):267–279. http://dx.doi.org/10.47305/jlia2137267l

5. Chalova LR, Lokshin VN, Kinzhibayev AA. Oocyte donation from medical professionals’ view. Russian Journal of Human Reproduction. 2022;28(6):79–87 (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.17116/repro20222806179

6. Appleby JB. Regulating the provision of donor information to donor-conceived children: Is there room for improvement? In: Golombok S, Scott R, Appleby J, Richards M, Wilkinson S, editors. Regulating Reproductive Donation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2016:334–351. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/cbo9781316117446.016

7. Laruelle C, Place I, Demeestere I, Englert Y, Delbaere A. Anonymity and secrecy options of recipient couples and donors, and ethnic origin influence in three types of oocyte donation. Hum Reprod. 2011 Feb;26(2):382–390. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/deq346

8. Esparza-Pérez RV. Gamete and embryo donation regulation in human assisted reproduction technologies: Disclosure or nondisclosure? Gaceta Médica de México. 2023;155(1):3–13. http://dx.doi.org/10.24875/gmm.m19000225

9. Álvarez Plaza C, Pichardo Galán JI. La construcción del “buen donante” de semen: selección, elección, anonimato y trazabilidad. Papeles del CEIC. 2018;2018(2):194. http://dx.doi.org/10.1387/pceic.18846

10. Daniels K. Anonymity and openness and the recruitment of gamete donors. Part I: semen donors. Hum Fertil (Camb). 2007;10(3):151–158. https://doi.org/10.1080/14647270601110298

11. Dempsey D, Nordqvist P, Kelly F. Beyond secrecy and openness: telling a relational story about children’s best interests in donor-conceived families. BioSocieties. 2021;17(3):527–548. http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/s41292-021-00225-9

12. Lampic C, Thorup E, Bladh M, Nedstrand E, Brinck X, Skoog Svanberg A, Sydsjö G. Are open-identity donors prepared for release of their identity? Long-term follow-up of a national sample of oocyte and sperm donors. Human Reproduction, 2025;40(10):1947–1956. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/humrep/deaf134

13. Pote V, Figueiredo D. Exploring Donor Attitudes and Psychological Experiences in Anonymous and Identity-Release Oocyte Donation: A Systematic Review. 2025. http://dx.doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6034583/v1. https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-6034583/v1

14. Martani A, Neeser N, Vulliemoz N, Pennings G. Challenges for the legislation enabling egg donation in Switzerland. Med Law Int. 2024;24(3):192–216. https://doi.org/10.1177/09685332241269583

15. Burr JA. To name or not to name? An overview of the social and ethical issues raised by removing anonymity from sperm donors. Asian J Androl. 2010 Nov;12(6):801–806. https://doi.org/10.1038/aja.2010.60

16. Ping P, Zhu WB, Zhang XZ, Li YS, Wang QX, Cao XR, Liu Y, Dai HL, Huang YR, Li Z. Sperm donation and its application in China: a 7-year multicenter retrospective study. Asian J Androl. 2011;13(4):644–648. https://doi.org/10.1038/aja.2011.20

17. Cohen G, Coan T, Ottey M, Boyd C. Sperm donor anonymity and compensation: an experiment with American sperm donors. J Law Biosci. 2016;3(3):468–488. https://doi.org/10.1093/jlb/lsw052

18. Pennings G. How to kill gamete donation: retrospective legislation and donor anonymity. Hum Reprod. 2012;27(10):2881–2885. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/des218

19. Pennings G, Mocanu E, Herrmann JR, Skytte AB, Burke C, Pacey A. Attitudes of sperm donors towards offspring, identity release and extended genetic screening. Reprod Biomed Online. 2021;43(4):700–707. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2021.06.025

20. Pennings G. Commentary on Craft and Thornhill: new ethical strategies to recruit gamete donors. Reprod Biomed Online. 2005;10(3):307– 309. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1472-6483(10)61788-9

21. Allan S. Psycho-social, ethical and legal arguments for and against the retrospective release of information about donors to donor-conceived individuals in Australia. J Law Med. 2011;19(2):354–376.

22. Allan S. Donor Conception and the Search for Information. Routledge; 2016. http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9781315568171

23. Bogdanova EE, Belova DA. Artificial reproduction of humans: the search for an optimal legal regulation model. Moscow: Prospekt; 2022. 234 p. (In Russ.).

24. Kameneva ZV. Civil law regime of human biological material. Bulletin of the Russian Law Academy. 2021;(2):89–94 (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.33874/2072-9936-2021-0-2-89-94

25. Krasnova TV. Bioethical premises of the civil law status of the recipient in the egg donation program. Tomsk State University Journal of Law. 2022;(45):177–192 (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.17223/22253513/45/12

26. Titlyanova EV. Pravovoi status donora gamet i embrionov [Legal status of gamete and embryo donors]. Aktual’nye problemy gumanitarnykh i estestvennykh nauk. 2012;7:170–174 (In Russ.).

27. Gramatchikova NB, Polyakova IG. Refining Methodological Reflection: Exploring the Interviewing Experience of Oocyte Donors. Changing Societies & Personalities. 2023;7(3):141–164. http://dx.doi.org/10.15826/csp.2023.7.3.245

28. Polyakova IG, Mazurov DO, Symanyuk EE, Khramtsova AYu. The Influence of Socio-Cultural Factors on Oocyte Donors’ Motivations and Disclosure Decisions. Changing Societies & Personalities. 2022;6(3):594–609. http://dx.doi.org/10.15826/csp.2022.6.3.191

29. Savvina OV. Ethical reasons for the regulation of gametes’ donation and co-parenting. Actual Problems of Russian Law. 2019;4:19–26 (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.17803/1994-1471.2019.101.4.019-026

30. Demkina EA. Anonimnost’ donorov polovykh kletok [Anonymity of gamete donors]. V: Aktual’nye problemy razvitiya grazhdanskogo prava i grazhdanskogo protsessa na sovremennom etape: materialy IV Vserossiiskoi nauchno-prakticheskoi konferentsii; Krasnodar, 18 fevralya 2016 goda. Krasnodar: Krasnodarskii universitet MVD Rossii; 2016. P. 400–403 (In Russ.).

31. Isupova OG. Vspomogatel’nye reproduktivnye tekhnologii: novye vozmozhnosti [Assisted Reproductive Technologies: New Opportunities]. Demograficheskoe obozrenie. 2017;4(1):35–64. http://dx.doi.org/10.17323/demreview.v4i1.6987

32. Sukhareva ER. Legal problems of modern reproductive technologies: genetic material and donor anonymity. Vestnik of Voronezh Institute of the Ministry of the Interior of Russia. 2014;2:22–28 (In Russ.).

33. Belova DA. Risks of genomic technologies in human artificial reproduction. Perm Legal Almanac. 2021;4:221–232 (In Russ.).

34. Kiyashchenko LP, Bronfman SA, Maylenova FG. Ethical-anthropological dilemmas of gamete and embryo donation: commodification, altruism, morality, and the future of the genetic family. RUDN Journal of Philosophy. 2020;24(1):113–124. http://dx.doi.org/10.22363/2313-2302-2020-24-1-113-124

35. Petrakova I.N. Anonymity as a simulacrum in the modern world. Izvestiya Tula State University. 2022;4:148–158 (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.24412/2071-6141-2022-4-148-158

36. Khayat SSh, Kurilo LF, Chernykh VB. Ethical and legal problems of ejaculate donor anonymity. Andrology and Genital Surgery. 2017;4:57– 60 (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.17650/2070-9781-2017-18-4-57-60

37. Bernstein G. Unintended Consequences: Prohibitions on gamete donor anonymity and the fragile practice of surrogacy. Indiana Health Law Review. 2012;10(2):291–324. http://dx.doi.org/10.18060/18826

38. Cahn N. What’s right about knowing? Journal of Law and the Biosciences. 2017;4(2):377–383. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jlb/lsx018

39. Craft I, Thornhill A. Would ‘all-inclusive’ compensation attract more gamete donors to balance their loss of anonymity? Reprod Biomed Online. 2005;10(3):301–306. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1472-6483(10)61787-7

40. Bauer T. A Systematic Review of Qualitative Studies Investigating Motives and Experiences of Recipients of Anonymous Gamete Donation. Front Sociol. 2022;7:746847. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsoc.2022.746847

41. Riaño-Galán I, Martínez González C, Gallego Riestra S. Cuestiones éticas y legales del anonimato y la confidencialidad en la donación de gametos [Ethical and legal questions of anonymity and confidentiality in gamete donation]. An Pediatr (Engl Ed). 2021;94(5):337.e1–337.e6. Spanish. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anpedi.2021.02.008