More and more centers are imposing expanded carrier screening (ECS) on their gamete donors. In some clinics and gamete banks, gamete donors are not given this right, contrary to the freedom to decline genetic screening in the general population. The possible social and psychological burdens that are recognized for infertility patients and the general population are downplayed for gamete donors. The procedure of imposing ECS on gamete donors shows that the interests of the recipients are valued higher than those of the donors. The general ethical argument defended here is the principle of proportionality: the burdens imposed on donors have to be balanced against the potential benefits for the offspring and the recipients. The risk reduction of ECS is below 1% and is too small to outweigh the potential dangers and disadvantages for donors. The conclusion is that clinics may ask, but not compel, donors to submit to ECS provided that they offer appropriate genetic and psychological counseling.

Anonymity remains the more common practice in gamete donations, but legislation prohibiting anonymity with a goal of protecting donor-conceived children's right to know their genetic origins is becoming more common. However, given the dearth of research investigating the function of anonymity for donors and recipients, it is unclear whether these policies will accomplish their goals. The aim of this study was to explore experiences with anonymity among oocyte donors and recipients who participated in an anonymous donor oocyte program and to understand the ways in which anonymity functions for them.

Semistructured interviews were conducted with 50 women: 28 oocyte donors and 22 recipients who were recruited from an academic center for reproductive medicine in the United States.

Donors and recipients view anonymity both as a mechanism to protect the interests of all parties (recipients, donors, and donor-conceived children) and as a point of conflict. Specifically, three key areas were identified where both donors and recipients saw anonymity as having an important role: relieving anxieties about family structures and obligations; protecting their interests and those of donor-conceived children (while acknowledging where interests conflict); and managing the future.

As gamete donation increasingly moves away from the practice of anonymity, examining why anonymity matters to stakeholders will be helpful in devising strategies to successfully implement identity-release options.

How do gamete donors who presumed they could remain anonymous respond to proposed legislation to retrospectively remove anonymity?

A little more than half of the donors opposed the recommendation to introduce legislation to remove donor anonymity with retrospective effect.

An increasing proportion of parents disclose their origins to their donor-conceived children and growing numbers of donor-conceived adults are aware of how they were conceived. Research indicates that access to information about the donor is important to donor-conceived people. However, worldwide most donor-conceived people are unable to find any identifying information about the donor because of the practice of anonymous gamete donation.

This study adopted a qualitative research model using semi-structured interviews with gamete donors that included open questions. Interviews with 42 volunteers were conducted between December 2012 and February 2013.

Before 1998 gamete donors in Victoria, Australia, were able to remain anonymous. Pre-1998 donors were invited through an advertising campaign to be interviewed about their views on a recommendation that legislation mandating retrospective release of identifying information be introduced.

Donors were almost evenly split between those who supported and those who rejected the recommendation to introduce legislation to remove donor anonymity with retrospective effect. About half of the donors who rejected the recommendation suggested the compromise of persuading donors voluntarily to release information (whether identifying or non-identifying) to donor-conceived people. These donors were themselves willing to supply information to their donor offspring. The findings of this study informed the Victorian Government's response to the proposed legislative change. While acknowledging donor-conceived people's right of access to information about their donors, the Government decided that identifying information should be released only with the consent of donors and that donors should be encouraged to allow themselves to be identifiable to their donor offspring.

There is no way of knowing whether participants were representative of all pre-1998 donors.

The balancing of donors' and donor-conceived people's rights requires utmost sensitivity. All over the world, increasing numbers of donor-conceived people are reaching adulthood; of those who are aware of their mode of conception, some are likely to have a strong wish to know the identity of their donors. Legislators and policy-makers in jurisdictions permitting anonymous gamete donations will need to respond when these desires are expressed, and may choose to be guided by the model of consultation described in this paper.

The study was funded by the Victorian Department of Health. The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Not applicable.

For the gamete and embryo donation community, it is well recognized that the implementation of a gamete and embryo donor registry (GEDR) represents a good initiative to ensure the best possible health conditions for donor-conceived individuals. Be they national, institutional or independent, GEDR can play a major role in the transmission of health-related genetic and medical information. However, from a bioethical analysis standpoint, GEDR raise many questions regarding the extent of their beneficent nature. Based on the recent Canadian GEDR aborted attempt, this article will focus on bioethical issues and paradoxes that can impact the wellbeing of donor-conceived individuals, half-siblings, donors and parents. On one hand, the implementation of a GEDR can be ethically justified as a beneficent action towards lessening harm associated with the transmission of hereditary disease and increasing the effectiveness of preventive and therapeutic approaches. On the other hand, examined through the concept of nonpaternalistic beneficence, GEDR challenge us to recognize beneficiaries' free agency, as well as the importance to transmit reliable and pertinent information. Ultimately, beyond an individualistic application of the principle of beneficence, socioethics invite us to consider consistency with societal values as a prerequisite for achieving a common good. Because the issue of whether or not to protect the donor's anonymity occupies the forefront of the discussion surrounding gamete and embryo donation, there is less interest in other initiatives, which may be implemented to ensure the best possible medical and psychosocial conditions for donor-conceived individuals. In this article, we propose a bioethical analysis of the use of gamete and embryo donor registries (GEDR) from the angle of the principle of beneficence. More specifically, we will concentrate on the Canadian situation regarding GEDR. We will look at the strengths and pitfalls of this mechanism and suggest a solution to maximize the benefits of a GEDR. Many have suggested that such an initiative could have a beneficial impact on the wellbeing of donor-conceived individuals, half-siblings, donors and parents, by ensuring the constant flow of health-related medical and genetic information. As self-evident as the social acceptability of a GEDR may seem, we wish to show the limitations of the benefits that a registry is supposed to provide. We argue that a GEDR has to do more than simply transmit health-related information between parties. It also has to be based on pertinent and reliable data, be useful for health promotion and recognize beneficiaries' free agency. Ultimately, the implementation of a GEDR has to take into consideration wider social values.

In recent years, particularly in developed countries, women have tended to delay childbirth until over 40 years of age. Our study aims to identify whether the donor's age or recipient's age influences the pregnancy and live birth rate following oocyte recipient cycles.

A population study included 3889 fresh oocyte recipient cycles. Pregnancy and live delivery rates were compared in recipient age groups (<35, 35-39, 40-44 and ≥45 years) and donor age groups (<30, 30-34, 35-39 and ≥40 years).

The highest live birth rate was of cycles in donors aged 30-34 years (25.0%), it decreased (P< 0.05) to 24.1% in donors aged <30 years, 20.7% in donors aged 35-39 years and 11.5% in donors aged ≥40 years. The multivariate analysis showed no significant differences in the success by recipient's age. Compared with cycles in donors aged 30-34 years, cycles in donors aged 35-39 years had 14 and 18% less chance to achieve a pregnancy [adjusted rate ratio (ARR) 0.86, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.75-0.98] and a live delivery (ARR 0.82, 95% CI 0.71-0.96), while cycles in donors aged 40 years or older had 42 and 54% less chance to achieve a pregnancy (ARR 0.58, 95% CI 0.41-0.84) and a live delivery (ARR 0.46, 95% CI 0.29-0.73).

Older recipients with younger donors did not have a poorer pregnancy outcome compared with younger recipients with younger donors. Choosing a donor aged <35 years would increase the chance of pregnancy and live delivery for older recipients.