GAMETE DONATION

Practice experiences of running UK DonorLink, a voluntaryinformation exchange register for adults related through donorconception

MARILYN CRAWSHAW1 & LYNDSEY MARSHALL2

1Department of Social Policy and Social Work, University of York, York, UK, & 2UK DonorLink, Headingley, Leeds, UK

AbstractPrevious practices of withholding information from those conceived through donor conception are changing. However, littleis known about the service needs of those affected. In response to this, the UK Government–funded pilot voluntaryinformation exchange and contact register, UK DonorLink, was launched in 2004, covering conceptions prior to August1991. It is the only register worldwide that relies primarily on DNA testing to establish genetic connectedness in the absenceof written records.

Approximately 150 adults came forward to register in the first three years of operation, drawn from all interested parties.Matches between half-siblings have been made, but none yet between donor and offspring. Employing staff with expertise inpost-adoption work has proved effective, as long as additional training and support specific to donor issues is provided. Theinfrastructure required to promote and deliver the service reflects the complex mix of skills and tasks required, and confirmsthat a service provided through independent counsellors alone would be inappropriate. Having a geographically and sociallywidespread potential registrant group, together with a limited budget, has limited the effectiveness of advertising andpromotion campaigns. Ethical and emotional complexities arising through the direct service are highlighted, including thosepresented by DNA use.

Keywords: Donors, donor offspring, registers, intermediary services

Introduction

Most jurisdictions and professional practices cover-

ing donor conception have in the past encouraged

information about genetic origins, including the facts

surrounding conception and the identity of the donor

(i.e. the genetic parent), to be withheld from those

conceived in this way. This has been changing in

recent years, and there is growing support inter-

nationally for moves towards openness (Blyth, 2006).

Since August 1991, all births that result from

donor-assisted conception in UK licensed clinics,

together with the details of gamete donors, are kept

on a Register of Information held by the regulatory

body, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology

Authority (HFEA; Human Fertilisation and Embryo-

logy Act 1990, s 31). Until recently, there was no

such provision for those conceived prior to 1991, and

no legal right for those conceived at any time, to have

access to identifying information about the donor.

However, lengthy debates in policy, practice and

public arenas, a high-profile court case brought

under the Human Rights Act 1998 by a donor-

conceived adult and a donor-conceived minor (Rose

and Another v Secretary of State for Health and Human

Fertilisation and Embryology Authority [2002]) and a

national consultation (Department of Health, 2001)

brought about changes. In January 2003, the then

Public Health Minister announced that the govern-

ment was to fund the pilot of a UK–wide voluntary

register to facilitate information exchange and/or

direct contact between adults (i.e. donors, donor-

conceived adults and their genetic siblings) where

donor-assisted conception occurred prior to August

1991 (Blears, unpublished). The pilot service, UK

DonorLink (UKDL), was launched in April 2004,

and this paper reports on the first three years of its

existence. Following a period of further lobbying, the

UK Parliament voted to end the anonymity of

gamete donors with effect from 1 April 2005, though

Correspondence: M. Crawshaw, Lecturer in Social Work and External Adviser to UK DonorLink, Department of Social Policy and Social Work, University of

York, York YO10 5DD, UK. Tel: þ44 1904 321254. E-mail: mac7@york.ac.uk

Human Fertility, December 2008; 11(4): 231–237

ISSN 1464-7273 print/ISSN 1742-8149 online � British Fertility Society/Informa Healthcare USA, Inc.

DOI: 10.1080/14647270801908228

Hum

Fer

til (

Cam

b) D

ownl

oade

d fr

om in

form

ahea

lthca

re.c

om b

y C

DL

-UC

Riv

ersi

de o

n 11

/08/

14Fo

r pe

rson

al u

se o

nly.

this was not applied retrospectively (Human Fertili-

sation and Embryology Authority [Disclosure of

Donor Information] Regulations 2004; Wincott &

Crawshaw, 2006).

There are a handful of state-funded registers

containing the names of donor-conceived people

and donors that aim to facilitate information

exchange (Blyth & Speirs, 2004). The first to open

were those run by the Infertility Treatment Authority

in Victoria, Australia, which include a voluntary

register. Others now in existence include ones in

Western Australia and New Zealand, and one is due

to open in Finland in 2008. The HFEA Register of

Information is due to open in 2008, but only for

those aged 18 and over (or 16 in certain circum-

stances) who believe that they were conceived using

donated gametes in clinics licensed by the HFEA.

Identifying information about donors will only be

released to those whose conception took place after 1

April 2005, or those whose donors have come

forward to re-register as willing to be identified.

The HFEA appears to carry no statutory responsi-

bility for providing a counselling or intermediary

service to those approaching the register, although

this was strongly recommended in a multidisciplin-

ary working party report produced by the British

Infertility Counselling Association in 2003 (BICA,

2003).

There are also at least three registers around the

world aimed at facilitating contact between genetic

siblings. The Sibling Registry, 5http://mattes.

home.pipeline.com/sibling.html4, and the Donor

Sibling Registry, 5http://donorsiblingregistry.

com4, are both based in the US. In the UK, the

recently formed SibLink, 5http://www.dcnetwork.

org4, is run by and for members of Donor

Conception Network, the self-help support group.

There is evidence that genetic relatives – whether

‘contact seekers’ or those being ‘found’ – having

contact after substantial periods of separation as a

result of adoption find it helpful to have access to

intermediary services (Howe & Feast, 2000; Trinder

et al., 2004; Clapton, 2006). Although there is no

parallel separation experience for those genetically

related through donor conception, recent research

with donors suggests that they, too, would feel more

confident when having direct or indirect contact with

their offspring if intermediary services were available.

In a study of 32 semen donors, involving one of the

authors (MC), 84.3% (27) had wondered about the

child(ren) conceived from their donation; 100% (32)

thought that it might be important for that person to

know something about the donor; and 84.3% (27)

thought contact might be important. Some sup-

ported the rights or needs of donor-conceived

people to know more about their donor, even if this

involved a personal cost to the donor. Some

welcomed the prospect of contact for themselves.

More than three-quarters (25; 78.1%) thought a

voluntary register was a good idea in principle, and

more than two-thirds (22; 68.6%) thought they

might register themselves. There was very strong

support for the provision of intermediary services

(Daniels et al., 2005; Crawshaw et al., 2007).

The need for professional services associated with

information release post-donor conception has been

expressed by the multidisciplinary British Fertility

Society (2007), the British Association of Social

Workers Project Group on Assisted Reproduction

(Progar) (2007), and the British Agencies for Adop-

tion and Fostering (2007). Such services are deemed

integral to post-adoption services and have recently

been sanctioned by statute (for a summary, see

Clapton, 2006).

This paper reports on the practice experiences

surrounding the running of the UK Government–

funded voluntary register, UKDL. The experiences

gained are unique in that this is the only register of its

kind in the world. As well as being professionally led

and government funded, it relies primarily on DNA

testing to establish genetic connectedness between

registrants. This is due either to the lack of clinic

records that could provide the necessary information

or to the refusal of such record holders to allow

access to them.

Key organizational features of the UK

DonorLink service

UKDL provides a service to adults aged 18 and over

who wish to exchange information and, if they wish,

have direct contact with those to whom they are

genetically related as a result of donor-assisted

conception that took place prior to the implementa-

tion of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology

(HFEA) Act 1990 (i.e. in August 1991). This

includes half-siblings, regardless of whether or not

they are donor-conceived.

UKDL is funded by the UK Department of Health

and is housed within the post-adoption service of a

UK–registered charity called After Adoption York-

shire (AAY). It is managed by the AAY manager

and, in line with UK charity regulations, is accoun-

table to the AAY Board of Trustees. It is not

governed by statute and thus has the freedom to

develop organically, providing that the level and

sources of funding allow this. Staff are assisted by an

adviser (MC), who has practice and research

experience in both donor conception and adoption.

They also have access to an advisory group compris-

ing those directly affected (as donor-conceived

adults, donors, or parents of donor-conceived adults)

and the chair of the BICA Working Party; represen-

tatives from the Department of Health and HFEA

232 M. Crawshaw & L. Marshall

Hum

Fer

til (

Cam

b) D

ownl

oade

d fr

om in

form

ahea

lthca

re.c

om b

y C

DL

-UC

Riv

ersi

de o

n 11

/08/

14Fo

r pe

rson

al u

se o

nly.

attend. Latterly, an increase in registrants’ interest in

contributing to the development of the service has

led to the launch of a Registrants Panel of donor-

conceived adults and donors. This will hold twice-

yearly face-to-face meetings and provide either

consultation to staff or a route through which its

members can raise matters proactively at, or in

between, meetings.

Details of those who register are held securely in a

database. Registration can be completed online, by

post or through direct contact. Every registrant is

required to have direct contact with UKDL staff at

some stage in the process (either by telephone or

face-to-face) and to provide information to verify

their identity. If registrants so wish, they can access

professionally qualified staff either at the Head Office

or in the UK–wide network of sessional staff for

information, advice, support or formal counselling.

This applies to any stage of the process, including

help with thinking through the implications of

registration, with releasing information, making

direct contact and so on. These services are both

voluntary and free. Given the lack of existing

professional expertise in this field, UKDL has

employed staff primarily from the field of post-

adoption services – the closest equivalent profes-

sional field – and offered additional training to

facilitate the process of contextualizing its unique

aspects.

As the majority of those eligible to register do not

have access to relevant medical records or any other

record of the conception, the ‘matching’ is done

through DNA testing. Where possible, DNA from

the genetic parent of a donor-conceived applicant is

also taken, as this increases the accuracy of any

subsequent matches. This service, though provided

via UKDL, incurs a charge levied by the laboratory

that is collected from registrants by UKDL (it

currently stands as £88.13). UKDL staff will witness

the collection of DNA swabs on request. The

laboratory used to undertake ‘matching’ runs manu-

ally, however has recently established a computerized

database as numbers have now reached levels which

justify this. The laboratory personnel provide profes-

sional advice to UKDL about both the processes

involved and the interpretation of results obtained.

As with most psychosocial services, the UKDL staff

were not well versed in the science of DNA prior to

the establishment of the service, and recognized that

the support of a reputable laboratory would be an

intrinsic part of the ongoing development of such a

new and uncharted register.

In keeping with the voluntary nature of the service,

registrants retain full control over the amount and

type of information that is released in the event of a

match. They also control the speed at which they

complete the registration process, and can request

that their registration is discontinued at any stage.

Any provisional plans around disclosure made at an

earlier stage are revisited in the light of actual

matches being made.

Patterns of use of the service

By the end of its third full year of operation, on 30

June 2007, approximately 150 people were either

fully registered or in the process of considering

registering with the service. Of these, 103 people

were fully registered, thirty were in the process of

registering and a further eighteen were in active

discussion about the implications of joining the

register. This included donor-conceived adults,

donors and a very small number of donors’ own

(adult) children. Additionally, thirty-seven biological

parents of donor-conceived adults (all mothers)

provided DNA in order to assist the matching

process. Seventeen ‘matches’ had been identified

that indicated a high probability of those concerned

being genetic half-siblings. These either confirmed

previous DNA test results conducted outside of

UKDL or provided new information about genetic

relationships.

Of course, the registration numbers only represent

a small proportion of donor-conceived adults and

donors in the UK. However, the lack of data about

both the numbers of donor-conceived adults who are

aware of their origins, and about donors, means that

the proportionate take-up rate cannot be determined.

Additionally, any analysis of these figures must be

treated with caution, given that they are low. With

these provisos in mind, the emerging picture is as

follows.

Take-up from donors has been surprisingly high.

They comprise just under one-third (50) of those

either fully registered or in the process of registering.

Overall, there are more females than males, with ages

at registration ranging from 18 to 70þ years.

Approximately twelve per cent of donor-conceived

adult registrants live overseas. The stage at which

donor-conceived registrants became aware of the

nature of their conception has varied, ranging from

early infancy to late middle age. Some approached

registration within a very short time of disclosure

whereas others were a way off it.

There has been considerable variation in the speed

with which people complete the registration process.

While some have done so within a matter of weeks,

others have taken several months. Some have started

the process and then suspended activity, sometimes

returning many months later. Others have yet to

restart. Though relatively few in number, some in all

parties involved – donor-conceived adults, donors

and biological parents of donor-conceived adults –

have taken up the offer of formal counselling. More

Practice experiences of running UK DonorLink 233

Hum

Fer

til (

Cam

b) D

ownl

oade

d fr

om in

form

ahea

lthca

re.c

om b

y C

DL

-UC

Riv

ersi

de o

n 11

/08/

14Fo

r pe

rson

al u

se o

nly.

have opted for assistance with taking the DNA

sample and/or for information, advice and support.

When this has been the case, it is not unusual for

discussions to take place that registrants report to be

helpful, even among those who had not anticipated a

need beyond assistance with collecting the DNA

sample. Some have chosen to have minimal contact

with UKDL staff while others have maintained

periodic e-mail, telephone or face-to-face contact,

even after registration is complete.

Key operational challenges

UKDL faced the challenge of establishing and

running a UK–wide service from scratch within a

limited timeframe, on a limited budget and without

the experience of other DNA–based registers in this

field to draw on, although staff did draw upon the

experience of non-DNA–based registers in existence

at that time. There have been a number of operational

challenges including coping with limited funding;

establishing secure databases; developing skills in

e-mail consultations with prospective and actual

registrants; managing a UK–wide service with small

numbers of staff and unknown levels of demand;

developing policies and practices that include com-

plex legal and ethical aspects; not having any statutory

rights for the service, or for donor-conceived in-

dividuals, to access records of their conception; and

managing a service that is high-profile in both the

political and media arenas. These are documented

more fully in our Annual Reports, which can be

found at 5http://www.ukdonorlink.org.uk4.

We have selected three areas that we consider of

particular interest to ongoing debates about the work

of such registers (aside from funding), namely:

advertising and promotion; DNA testing and match-

ing; and comparison with post-adoption work.

Advertising and promotion of the register

There are challenges in providing a service where the

quantitative demand is unknown, and where poten-

tial users of the service are located both throughout

the UK and overseas. It is thought that many donor-

conceived adults are unaware of their status, and

donor-conceived adults, offspring of the donor and

donors are to be found in all walks of life. Hence

there are no clear outlets for targeted advertising.

Public campaigns of a profile to reach large numbers

of adults are costly and therefore difficult to fund

either as a one-off or on a sustainable basis. Using

the popular media as an outlet can be less costly

financially, but uptake and interest from such media

always requires there to be a personal ‘human

interest’ story. Many existing registrants are, under-

standably, reluctant to share their stories through any

medium, though this is starting to change. Taken

together, it has proved difficult to devise ways of

promoting the existence of the register on a sustain-

able basis, and we have had to rely substantially on

opportunistic outlets.

DNA testing and matching

The underpinning of the service through DNA

testing places demands on staff more accustomed

to drawing on a psychosocial knowledge base.

Alongside the new learning from the science came

the demands of developing appropriate professional

supportive responses to its implications. With appar-

ent ‘matches’ come a degree of uncertainty. All of the

matches obtained to date have been of half-siblings.

Unlike those between genetic parent and offspring,

matches between siblings are rarely conclusive.

Those concerned can only be told of the ‘likely

probability’ of a genetic relationship, and advised

that the addition of further DNA samples from other

registrants could result in this ‘likely probability’

being either increased, reduced or even ruled out.

Additionally, information obtained from DNA tests

can also indicate that previously assumed genetic

relationships within a family – say, between siblings

who understood that they were conceived using the

same donor – may be found to be otherwise.

The service has had to make complex and ethically

challenging decisions. These include:

. When to release information: that is, at what

level of probability should those concerned be

informed? Do registrants have a right to know,

regardless of probability rate? What if people

act on the basis of assumed relationships, only

to be told later that the probability has changed

(as we have had to do)? What is our ‘duty of

care’ in this context? Our experience has been

that people are likely to assume the presence of

a genetic relationship and act on that assump-

tion, even when we advise them that this may

turn out not to be the case. In our view, this is

not surprising. However, we retain concerns

about any impact on people who go on to

make emotional and social investments in

relationships on the assumption that they are

genetically based, only to subsequently dis-

cover that the probability of a genetic link has

reduced.

. Who to release information to and when: given

that the information may involve a number of

parties, should the provision of information be

done simultaneously and, if so, what happens

if this leads to significant delays or proves

impossible to arrange? Should agreement to

the timing be in writing (agreement to the

234 M. Crawshaw & L. Marshall

Hum

Fer

til (

Cam

b) D

ownl

oade

d fr

om in

form

ahea

lthca

re.c

om b

y C

DL

-UC

Riv

ersi

de o

n 11

/08/

14Fo

r pe

rson

al u

se o

nly.

release of information itself is in writing), or is

verbal agreement sufficient? What happens if

only some of those involved agree to informa-

tion release, given that the information may

reach those parties who have refused? What

happens when released information reaches

parties that others may have wished to either

exclude or protect from it? This invokes

questions about who ‘owns’ the information,

who has any veto over its release and whose

interests are paramount. Such issues are not

unfamiliar in the field of clinical genetics, for

example, but the numbers of people involved

at similar relationship levels (i.e. siblings or

offspring of the same donor) are perhaps

uniquely large in the field of donor conception

(see Festing, 1999/2000; Gollancz, 2007).

They are also more likely to be found across

family units that had no previous contact or

relationship with each other.

. How to release information: again, thorny

issues arise. Should the information be deliv-

ered by letter, e-mail or telephone? Given that

UKDL offers access to professional staff

alongside the provision of matching informa-

tion or information release, what happens if

that offer is accepted by large numbers, all

requiring the service at the same time?

Similarities and differences between UKDL work and

post-adoption work

The UKDL service is embedded in knowledge

developed from post-adoption services and

adapted to the donor conception context. Given its

location within a post-adoption service and its shared

management with that service, it is well placed to

compare contemporary practice experiences and

identify similarities and differences between the two

fields.

Similarities.

. Both donor conception and adoption involve

‘lifelong’ processes.

. Historically, both donor conception and adop-

tion have been surrounded by a climate of

secrecy; this has led to some of our service

users experiencing ‘family secrets’ and/or to

children growing up unaware of their origins.

. The secrecy surrounding both adoption (in the

past) and donor conception means that in-

forming others/becoming informed may occur

late in the day including, in some cases, during

teenage and adult years.

. The importance for some donor-conceived

adults and adopted adults of obtaining

knowledge about their origins and identity is

evident.

. As in adoption, some (but not all) donor-

conceived adults have described a sense of ‘not

fitting’ in or feeling something is ‘wrong’ about

their position in their family or in family

relationships.

. As in adoption, some donor-conceived adults

have expressed concerns about the effect on

their parents of coming forward to try and

make contact with their donor.

. In UKDL’s experience, as in post-adoption

work, service users have expressed satisfaction

that a ‘helping’ service is available at each stage

of the process. This includes anticipated needs for

an intermediary and support service, should ex-

change of information and/or contact take place.

. In both fields, our experience is that a skill mix is

required in the workforce.1 As well as good

quality administrative staff, there is a need for

staff qualified and experienced in ‘search and

reunion’ or ‘search and contact’ work. This in-

cludes skills in helping people think through the

implications of their proposed actions at each

stage of the process. Some, but by no means all,

will also require a formal counselling service for

help with managing the impact of the actual or

potential process. This applies to all parties, i.e.

donor-conceived adults, donors and parents.

. In both services, we have also identified the

need for the service to work from within an

infrastructure – that is to say, it is not appro-

priate for it to be provided by freelance, indepen-

dent counsellors contracted on an individual

basis by those requiring help. Aside from the

workforce comments in the previous point, our

experience is that some of those approaching

both services can take a while to engage fully in

the process. They require a service that can

respond ‘little and often’, or one that can

accommodate a ‘stop/start’ approach. Addition-

ally, such a service structure is more likely to be

able to make effective use of registrants’ feed-

back and the pooling of practice experiences

than isolated individual practitioners.

Differences.

. Although there can be both ‘loss’ and ‘identity’

issues to manage in both situations, there are

some differences in how these are manifest.

� In adoption, loss issues are more likely to

centre on a sense of abandonment and

disconnection at the loss of the birth-

mother relationship. For donor-conceived

adults, loss issues are more likely to

present as a sense of loss at not having

Practice experiences of running UK DonorLink 235

Hum

Fer

til (

Cam

b) D

ownl

oade

d fr

om in

form

ahea

lthca

re.c

om b

y C

DL

-UC

Riv

ersi

de o

n 11

/08/

14Fo

r pe

rson

al u

se o

nly.

been conceived ‘naturally’, and therefore

feeling less of a ‘real’ person.

� The adopted person comes from a social,

historical and familial background. There is

a ‘story’ to the adoption – the history of the

relationship between the birth parents, even

if brief; the reasons for the adoption; and the

relationship between the birth parents and

how this developed and/or ended. The

donor-conceived adult does not have this

historical relationship context. However,

there is a social/historical context in the

family into which the donor-conceived adult

is born – such as infertility – that has to be

managed, and some donor-conceived

adults have an interest in the ‘story’ of the

donor and of his/her family. Whereas in

post-adoption work the term ‘search and

reunion’ is generally appropriate,2 it may

not be so appropriate for donor conception

work. A more accurate term might be

‘search and contact’.

. There are less likely to be written records that

can be accessed by a donor-conceived person,

and this can engender strong feelings of

frustration and anger. There is also no birth

certificate containing the donor’s (i.e. genetic

parent) name to be retrieved.

. There are more likely to be multiple geneti-

cally related half-siblings following donor

conception. To date, all UKDL matches have

been with half-siblings. In post-adoption con-

tact between half-siblings, there is often a

shared history of time spent together prior to

the birth family break-up (which may be

positive or otherwise) to be managed; there is

no comparable relationship history for those

‘matched’ through UK DonorLink.

. Many of the donors who have registered had

not previously received any in-depth advice

and support about the lifelong nature and

implications of their decision to donate. Some

have required considerable support from

UKDL in coping with later realization of

these. These include both implications for

themselves and their families and the realiza-

tion that their donation may have inadvertently

resulted in distress for those conceived. Issues

for birth parents following adoption are often

more to do with either regrets about voluntary

relinquishment of a child or anger at a child

being removed involuntarily.

. Previously prospective parents often received

only limited help with thinking through the

implications of using donor conception as a

route to family formation. Some have used the

UKDL service to help and support them both

in deciding how and when to tell their

children, but also to cope with the aftermath of

‘telling’ and then registering. There is no

parallel task for birth parents in adoption.

. A number of parents have provided DNA for

the register to enhance the matching process.

There is no parallel task for either birth or

adoptive parents in adoption.

. Among registrants to date, there is some

evidence of fractured families and fractured

relationships with parents, especially fathers.

This is an early emerging family trend in a

young project, but it appears, to date, to be

more widespread than among the adoptive

families of adopted adults seeking information

and/or contact with birth relatives.

. The difficulties that present most commonly in

adopted families focus on the adoption itself,

whereas it is UKDL’s experience that many

donor-conceived adults focus on the relation-

ship between themselves and their parents,

especially their father (all donor-conceived

adult registrants, to date, were conceived

through sperm donation).

. The donor-conceived adults approaching

UKDL have all known one of their biological

parents. Adopted adults may not have, or may

not be able to obtain, knowledge about either

biological parent.

Summary

We have reported on some key aspects of providing a

professional-led, state-funded voluntary information

exchange and contact service to those genetically

related through donor conception prior to August

1991. Uniquely, this is a service underpinned by

DNA matching.

With such a geographically and socially wide-

spread potential registrant group, together with a

limited budget, it has proved difficult to develop

effective advertising and promotion campaigns. As

more registrants are starting to come forward and be

prepared to share their ‘personal’ stories, the use of

the popular media is likely to increase.

Some of the ethical and emotional complexities faced

by those approaching the service and the service provi-

ders have been highlighted. These include the chal-

lenges of managing DNA results. The timing and

mechanisms of sharing results, together with the consent

requirements, are complex to administer. Results only

offer an indication of a probability of a genetic link

rather than providing full confirmation between half-

siblings. Additionally, probability rates can increase or

decrease as new DNA material is added. Staff, and espe-

cially registrants, may find themselves on an emotional

rollercoaster as they navigate such scientific realities.

The need for intermediary services has been iden-

tified and its composition considered. As well as staff

236 M. Crawshaw & L. Marshall

Hum

Fer

til (

Cam

b) D

ownl

oade

d fr

om in

form

ahea

lthca

re.c

om b

y C

DL

-UC

Riv

ersi

de o

n 11

/08/

14Fo

r pe

rson

al u

se o

nly.

who are trained and experienced in formal counsel-

ling, there is a clear need for professionals competent

in facilitating the registration, matching, information

exchange and contact processes. Therefore, there may

need to be a frontline service staffed by those with

advanced counselling skills and experience in inter-

mediary work, and a second-stage formal counselling

service. Whatever the arrangements, UKDL’s experi-

ence suggests the need for the service to have an

organizational infrastructure rather than to be deliv-

ered through individually contracted professionals.

By drawing on the existing expertise within post-

adoption services, and housing the UKDL service

within one such service, it has been possible to draw

out broad similarities and differences between these

and post-donor conception services.

Finally, the UKDL service is, as yet, not funded on a

permanent basis.3 Such security is now called for.

Registrants are drawn from donor-conceived adults

and donors. Donor-conceived adults, of course, were

not party to decisions about the nature of their concep-

tion, but are dealing with its consequences including

the need for information about their genetic, and

possibly their biographical, heritage. It is anticipated

that the majority of donors who register with UKDL

are doing so in order to assist donor-conceived adults

with that process rather than for personal gain. For

both these reasons, it is important that the provision of

intermediary services such as UKDL remain free.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge the useful-

ness of the discussions at the national seminar on

Intermediary Services organized by the British

Association of Social Workers’ Project Group on

Assisted Reproduction (Progar) at the Department

of Health in February 2007, at which both authors

presented a paper. We would also like to thank the

referees for their helpful comments.

Notes

1 We recently produced a briefing paper about these aspects,

which is available on our website, 5http://www.ukdonorlink.

org.uk4 February 2007 Briefing Paper on Key Organisational

Features; click on Recent Publications.

2 Its usage in post-adoption work has been challenged when

referring to contact between birth family members who have

never previously met (Clapton, 2006).

3 Following the submission of this paper, new legislation has been

placed before the UK Parliament in the form of the Human

Fertilisation and Embryology Bill. Provision for the HFEA to be

given the power of authority to run or fund the running of a

voluntary register is included. The Bill does not include reference

to intermediary services, nor does it include a proposal for services

in relation to any aspect of a voluntary register to be free.

References

Blears, H. Keynote address, presented at the Human Fertilisation

and Embryology Authority Annual Conference, London, 28

January, 2003.

Blyth, E. (2006). Donor anonymity and secrecy versus openness

concerning the genetic origins of the offspring: international

perspectives. Jewish Medical Ethics, V(2), 4–13.

Blyth, E., & Speirs, J. (2004). Meeting the rights and needs of

donor-conceived people: The contribution of a voluntary

register. Nordisk Sosialt Arbeid, 24, 318–330.

British Association for Adoption and Fostering. (2007). Memor-

andum by the British Agencies for Adoption and Fostering (Ev

37). In Authority of the House of Lords, Human tissue and

embryos (draft) bill. Volume II: Evidence (pp. 283–286).

London: The Stationery Office Ltd. Available at:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt200607/jtselect/

jtembryos/169/169ii.pdf, accessed on 5 September 2007.

British Association of Social Workers Project Group on Assisted

Reproduction (Progar). (2007). Memorandum by the British

Association of Social Workers Project Group on Assisted

Reproduction (Ev 29). In Authority of the House of Lords,

Human tissue and embryos (draft) bill. Volume II: Evidence

(pp. 286–288). London: The Stationery Office Ltd. Available

at: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt200607/jtselect/

jtembryos/169/169ii.pdf, accessed on 5 September 2007.

British Fertility Society. (2007). Department of Health Review of the

Human Fertility and Embryology Act White Paper (December

2006) – British Fertility Response 24th April 2007. Available at:

http://www.fertility.org.uk/news/documents/Final%20BFS%20

response%20to%20White%20paper%2024.4.07.pdf, accessed

on 05/09/2007.

British Infertility Counselling Association (BICA). (2003). Open-

ing the record. Sheffield: BICA Publications.

Clapton, G. (2006). Mediated contact – reflections on a piece of

after-adoption intermediary practice. Adoption and Fostering,

30, 53–63.

Crawshaw, M. A., Blyth, E. D., & Daniels, K. D. (2007). Past

semen donors’ views about the use of a voluntary contact

register. Reproductive BioMedicine Online, 14, 411–417.

Daniels, K., Blyth, E., Crawshaw, M., & Curson, R. (2005). Short

communication: Previous semen donors and their views

regarding the sharing of information with their offspring.

Human Reproduction, 20, 1670–1675.

Department of Health. (2001). Donor information consultation:

Providing information about sperm, egg and embryo donors.

Available at: http://www.dh.gov.uk/assetRoot/04/01/87/74/

04018774.pdf, accessed on 5 September 2007.

Festing, S. (1999/2000). Brothers and sisters have I many. DI

Network News, Winter Newsletter, 14, 5.

Gollancz, D. (2007). Written evidence to the Joint Committee on the

Human Tissue and Embryos (Draft) Bill (Ev 44). Available

at: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt200607/jtselect/

jtembryos/169/169we47.htm, accessed on 8 December 2007.

Howe, D., & Feast, J. (2000). Adoption, search and reunion: The long

term experience of adopted adults. London: The Children’s

Society.

Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (Disclosure of Donor

Information) Regulations 2004. London: The Stationery Office

Ltd.

Trinder, L., Feast, J., & Howe, D. (2004). The adoption reunion

handbook. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Wincott, E., & Crawshaw, M. A. (2006). From a social issue to

policy: Social work’s advocacy for the rights of donor-

conceived people to genetic origins information in the UK.

Social Work in Health Care, 43(2/3), 53–72.

Practice experiences of running UK DonorLink 237

Hum

Fer

til (

Cam

b) D

ownl

oade

d fr

om in

form

ahea

lthca

re.c

om b

y C

DL

-UC

Riv

ersi

de o

n 11

/08/

14Fo

r pe

rson

al u

se o

nly.