Secrecy and openness in donor offspring

G. Schilling1, and R. Conrad

Department of Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, University of Bonn, Sigmund Freud Str. 25 53105 Bonn, Germany

Dear Sir,

We read the recent article `Identity experiences of donor offspring' (Turner and Coyle, 2000Go) with great interest. There are few studies concerning experiences or problems of adult donor offspring and further insights into this important field of research are urgently required.

However, regarding the study itself, considerable methodical problems arise by the presentation of data and the qualitative analysis of data by using interpretative phenomenological analysis. For example, the selectivity of data cannot be evaluated if it is not clear how many members of adult donor offspring networks were contacted and what percentage of people finally participated in the study. Furthermore, almost no detailed information is given about the specific method of disclosure in the different participants. It would be of great interest to know at which age, in which situation and in which way disclosure took place. Possibly there is a link between the style of disclosure and the experience of negative (or positive) emotions in this situation and the ability to cope with the fact of being a donor offspring. However, the lack of these vital pieces of information makes it impossible to gain a more differentiated insight into experiences of donor offspring.

Regarding the interpretative phenomenological analysis of data, the problem may arise that the researchers will only find in the data the facts they have been looking for. The authors describe the application of the interpretative phenomenological analysis in detail: `Notes were then made in the left-hand margin of any responses or phrases that were of interest or significant in relation to the research question and focused on the participants thoughts and feelings about their identity as a donor offspring.' By employing this method only data are presented in which the (problematic) experience of identity is a subject of importance for participants, which might lead to a biased interpretation of data.

Although the authors themselves discuss essential differences between adopted children and donor insemination (DI) children, the applied questionnaires are based on findings from research on adoption. To our mind it is of vital importance to differentiate between these two groups. Most adopted children had the experience of being abandoned by their parents at an early age and therefore share a feeling of being unwanted children (Shenfield and Steele, 1997Go). Children conceived by donor insemination are always planned children, whose parents took great efforts to enable their existence. Our own studies concerning DI families (Schilling, 1995Go, 1999Go) showed that all social fathers were aware of a high similarity of character to their children regardless of sex. This similarity resulted from the continuous occupation with `their child' and enabled the social fathers to reduce cognitive dissonances and to completely feel as though they were the actual biological fathers. Theoretical considerations derived from psychoanalytical theory that the social fathers reject DI children could not be confirmed.

In view of the methodical weaknesses of the study we think that several conclusions made by the authors are unsubstantiated and possibly misleading. In particular, the conclusion that non-disclosure of donor insemination can cause psychological damage seems to be unsubstantiated. For example it is highly problematic to transfer negative experiences of adult donor offspring to whom their origin had been disclosed to all DI children. Maybe mainly the (style of) disclosure caused psychological disturbances and negative experiences in childhood are interpreted in retrospect on the basis of the negative experience of disclosure. Furthermore the authors do not differentiate between the experience of a trauma and the manifestation of psychopathologically relevant symptoms. No information is given regarding psychopathologically relevant symptoms in the 16 participants.

In future studies certain psychodiagnostic tests, for example, could give more detailed information in terms of psychopathologically relevant symptoms in DI children. Furthermore all available quantitative data concerning the sample should be presented so that selectivity of data can better be evaluated. Thus, future studies could answer the more differentiated question, `in which situation' openness in DI families might be favourable and `in which situation' the disadvantages of openness might outweigh the advantages.

Notes

1 To whom correspondence should be addressed E-mail: Guntram.Schilling{at}ukb.uni-bonn.de Back

References

Schilling, G. (1995) Zur Problematik familiärer Geheimnisse am Beispiel der heterologen Insemination. Psychother. Psychosom. Med. Psychol., 45, 16–23.[ISI][Medline]

Schilling, G. (1999) Kinder nach donogener (heterologer) Insemination in der Einschätzung ihrer Eltern. Zsch. Psychosom. Med., 45, 354–371.

Shenfield, F. and Steele, S.J. (1997) What are the effects of anonymity and secrecy on the welfare of the child in gamete donation? Hum. Reprod., 12, 392–395.[Abstract]

Turner, A.J. and Coyle, A. (2000) What does it mean to be a donor offspring? The identity experiences of adults conceived by donor insemination and the implications for counselling and therapy. Hum. Reprod., 15, 2041–2051.[Abstract/Free Full Text]