Donor Conception for Life

Psychoanalytic Reflections on New Ways of Conceiving the Family

Katherine Fine

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2018
• eBook ISBN: 9780429912924
• Topic: Psychology
• Subtopic: History & Theory in Psychology
• Index: Psychology

This book is about the psychological experiences of women and men who have used donor conception to create their families. The authors offer diverse accounts of their clinical, research, and personal experiences. They describe the challenge of powerful conscious and unconscious fantasies that can be aroused and how these may reawaken early anxieties and developmental struggles. Whilst recipients of donated eggs or sperm may think they are simply acquiring a factor of reproduction, they are also receiving the genetic history of another family. The sensitive management of these relationships is considered in relation to establishing healthy and well-functioning families. The way these emotional challenges are negotiated is likely to be reflected in how parents talk with children about their donor origins.

Part I
An Overview of the Psychological Issues Related to Reproductive Technology

Chapter One
Introduction: how do we conceive the family?

Katherine Fine

The title, Donor Conception For Life, seeks to emphasise that this book is not just about procreation, but is about raising a family of donor conceived children. Some recipients may assume that in using donated gametes, that is a sexually reproducing organism, especially an ovum or sperm, they are simply acquiring a factor of reproduction, with no further implications. This assumption does not take account, however, of the genetic history and psychological legacy of the donor’s family, such that the donor becomes part of the reality of the family for life: genetically and psychologically.

The book seeks to identify some of the significant issues that people encounter. In this introduction I will briefly outline the development of the thinking and practice of building families with the assistance of donor conception. In an effort to capture a very contemporary set of circumstances, I will describe a discussion I had with two fifteen-year-old girls who discovered five years ago that they are half-siblings; born into two different families, they share the same sperm donor. I will end this introduction by giving a short preface to Parts I to IV, to introduce and frame each of the contributions and define the structure of the book.

If you were to open a newspaper or a magazine these days, you would not be surprised to see an article about a family created using a donated egg or sperm, nor to read about some of the wider associated issues. Recent examples are stories about tracing the donor, families with same sex parents, women successfully postponing childbirth by using egg freezing or egg donation, or the fact of sperm as a marital asset. Twenty years ago, the idea that fertility treatment using donor gametes would have made such a leap into public consciousness would have seemed extraordinary, given the culture of secrecy that was supported and advocated by the majority of fertility clinics.

Advances in reproductive medical technology and in DNA testing have had a dramatic effect on the sorts of issues that confront prospective parents of donor conceived children, donor conceived families, and, most importantly, the donor conceived children and adults themselves. At the first national meeting of the Donor Insemination Network in Sheffield in 1993, attended by only sixty people, the main preoccupation of members was about whether to be open and tell donor offspring about the way they were conceived. In 2000, the Donor Insemination Network was renamed the Donor Conception Network to reflect the diversity of gamete donation, sperm, egg, embryo, and double donation. By 2013, the Donor Conception Network (DCN) membership stood at around 1,700, mainly UK based family members.

It seems fair to say that all parenting stirs up conscious and unconscious fantasies. As in other forms of psychological investigation, by looking at the more unusual aspects, in this case an alternative way of conceiving a child, one can throw light on our understanding of all processes of reproduction. We all have to come through these fantasies and processes in growing up, in having a relationship with our parents, both in our mind and in reality, and, ultimately perhaps, in becoming parents ourselves. Involving a donor as an external party to procreation raises many complex psychological, social, and relational issues. This challenges our fundamental preconceptions about “who is family” and “how babies are made”.

Background

An increased understanding of the physiology of conception and reproduction has revolutionised the means of medically treating problems of infertility, conception, pregnancy, and childbirth. This knowledge and technical expertise has had far reaching social, individual, and family consequences. The notion that a sexually active heterosexual couple is a necessary condition for either conception or parenting no longer holds true. This has provided the opportunity to parent for individuals who are not in a position to create a family in the conventional way.

With the ending in 2005 of donor anonymity in the UK, the rights of the donor conceived child in this country have been acknowledged and changed. At the age of eighteen, donor conceived individuals will be able to access identifying information about their donor. This right will only become a reality for those conceived after 2005 and effective therefore from 2023 onwards, when the first children affected by the legislation reach the age of eighteen. The anonymity of the donors of those conceived between 1991 and 2005 will be maintained and their identity will never be disclosed, unless they have subsequently decided to waive their anonymity by “re-registering”.

One can see how this combination of circumstances has inevitably led to a sea change in thinking and a much wider interest in donor conceived families.

Psychoanalytic ideas

In many ways, an understanding of the processes of procreation and child rearing embraces the whole body of psychoanalytic theory and practice. In introducing this book, I cannot summarise all of these ideas. An appropriate starting point however may be Winnicott’s fundamental notion that any understanding of an infant is inextricably linked with the individuals upon whom the baby depends.

“There is no such thing as an infant”, meaning, of course, that whenever one finds an infant one finds maternal care, and without maternal care there would be no infant. (Winnicott, 1960, p. 39)

Ehrensaft (2000) develops this theme by saying you cannot have a donor conceived family and turn a blind eye to the donor. Over the last twenty years, there has been a revolution in thinking and in application, so that being open and honest about what Ken Daniels describes in this book: “as the family building history and the involvement of a donor”, if it is well managed: “leads to healthy and well functioning families”. The implication is that the journey is incomplete if the role of the donor as one of these parties is not acknowledged or more fully understood.

Thinking about the psychological implications of assisted reproductive technology has the potential to influence every parent, not just those who embark on fertility treatment. The technical possibilities offer the prospect of altering our fantasies about reproduction, conscious or unconscious, as well as impacting on the folk myths about how children can or should come into the world.

It may be essential to mourn the loss of one’s fertility or the loss of an ideal family before being truly able to accept that conventional child bearing is not an option. In a strange way, we are now no longer innocently held hostage to fortune, given the opportunities for such procreative possibilities and outcomes through the use of donated gametes, be it through egg donation, sperm donation, double donation (egg and sperm), embryo donation, or surrogacy, to assist conception.

The oedipal myth is used in psychoanalytic theory to understand the process by which a child works out the relationships between themselves and those who care for them. The presence of the donor inevitably complicates this process, both consciously or unconsciously, for all participants in the donor conceived family.

Becoming a parent is a massive psychological challenge for everyone. Research suggests that all parents benefit from having an opportunity to explore the psychological implications for them, of becoming a parent (Cowan et al., 2009). Such analysis of thoughts and feelings may be even more important for people engaging in assisted reproductive technologies, such as donor conception.

Linda and Susie

I would now like to introduce you to Linda and Susie, who are half-siblings, because they were conceived through the same anonymous sperm donor, but to different mothers, in different families. Fifteen when I met them, they were born a few weeks apart, but did not know of each other until they were ten years old. I wanted to hear about their experience of having found each other. I hope that I am able to capture the essence of their particular sibling bond and how their being donor conceived seems to have been integrated into their sense of “family”, as it has continued to evolve.

The girls talked about how they had both grown up, always knowing they were donor conceived; there never having been a “sit down at the table moment . . . of revelation”. They told me about school, the curiosity of their peers and I was impressed by how they seemed to have managed this with great self-assurance. What stayed with me was the girls’ fearless curiosity and their maturity. While for me this seemed an extraordinary story, for them this was ordinary life and in no way remarkable.

Linda and Susie call each other sisters, “because it’s easier”. Half-sister sounds “a bit detached and clinical”. Both only children in their respective families, the girls seem to have grown up with a precocious sense of what is involved in handling the interest of others.

Susie is in a family with her single mother and had long been aware of the possibility of having half-siblings. Her mother had placed a notice in the DCN Sibling Link to register an interest in tracing any other children who might have been conceived using the same anonymous sperm donor. Susie knew that she probably had a minimum of nine half-siblings as the donor had contributed to nine other families, but she had never expected to meet one. Susie told me she has her grandparents who are like second parents; she feels part of a big extended family to whom she is close. Susie was never particularly bothered about siblings and now she and Linda have each other she is happy with that. She thinks less about the donor because of her sister from “that side of her family”, which has satisfied her curiosity.

Linda is in a family with two mothers in a lesbian partnership. She had previously imagined that the anonymous man had donated only once, for her. When she was ten years old, Linda’s mother was looking for a mentor for her daughter as she prepared for secondary school transfer. She thought it would be helpful for Linda to talk to someone else about being donor conceived and to consider the inevitable curiosity about her family and birth circumstances. If she were given the opportunity to meet the donor Linda said she would, although she would not like it if he were disappointing as a role model, or if he was not interested in her. Linda felt that if she had grown up with a brother or sister in her family, she probably would have been less curious about Susie, because she would have had someone of a similar age with whom she could talk about being in her family.

Donor conception for life—making contact

In sharing information about their respective donor, his distinctive hobbies and physical characteristics as far as they knew them, their mothers realised that the sperm donor was one and the same man. Proposing contact between the two families and the girls meeting each other, the mothers recognised that this was not a relationship that could be dropped if the girls did not get along; they would be in each other’s families and lives forever. They were cautious, as Linda put it: “We are a happy family and didn’t want to jeopardise it.”

Finding out about each other was to be a fact of family life, even if it transpired that the girls were to regard each other as a sort of distant cousin with whom they would have limited contact. In the event, Linda and Susie told me they get on so well that they want to spend time together. They go away on holiday, both girls with each of their families, for their summer break. They both feel very accepted by each other’s grandparents, staying overnight and going away with them too.

Susie felt that at ten years old, their discovery of each other was exciting, not confusing. Linda said it was really bizarre to see a picture of someone to whom you were genetically related. She clearly remembers the afternoon she was told by her parents that she had a half-sister:

I felt my head was going to explode because you don’t even consider the possibility of a sibling—hang on, you have a half-sister . . . I spent all afternoon asking questions.

Their first meeting

Linda felt that it mattered a lot because they wanted to start the relationship well, but bonding was not going to be automatic, as Susie put it:

We never expected to meet anyone, we were so lucky to meet one another. Obviously this is a person you have never met before, you have to build a relationship with them but as you have this [genetic link] . . . it is a good starting point and thinking of the future we are going to be friends for a long time because we are related.

They remembered meeting each other as being incredibly awkward. They had been worried that they would be very different and would have to force their relationship, but they were pleased that they seemed to share common interests—they both liked Dr Who! Linda remembers Susie’s mum answering the door and catching her first sight of Susie and thinking “there’s my half-sister”. She explained:

You don’t know what to do it’s like a completely alien experience . . . you don’t know whether to say “what do you do in your free time?” or “hey you’re my sister” . . . we both wanted to make it work . . . it was only the two of us . . . we were thinking this is going to affect us for the rest of our lives.

They told me they feel lucky to be so comfortable with one another. Becoming friends quite quickly, they both remarked on the value of going through puberty at school and having someone to share it with.

How does the fact of the donor shape their sense of family?

They seemed at ease with the (anonymous) donor not being a part of their lives and unlikely to be known to them in the future. Appearing to take this in their stride they were receptive to the notion of him, but more in the sense of general curiosity, particularly now that they had each other. They both imagined the donor was probably married and had children of his own, although neither seemed to consider that if he had any, the donor’s own children would be their half-siblings. In their discussion with me they seemed to be reflecting on the nature of his “gift” and what his motivation might have meant in terms of exploring his fit in their family. As Linda put it:

You’d have to decide how much you would make them part of your life, would you have Christmas dinner together? Also, he has his own life, he’s probably married and has kids of his own.

Linda would not think of calling her donor “dad” or anything like that. When she was little she used to think about the donor as the ideal dad sort of figure, whereas now she does not really want to know who he is because:

. . . chances are he is not going to be that ideal figure that I have in my mind and I have a happy life and I have a half-sister that I really love . . . I don’t have the need to meet him, I don’t feel that my life is any less for not having him in it.

Susie said she had thought about the donor, but less so since meeting Linda. They both feel they would only meet the donor if both of them were happy about it. Their relationship comes first, according to Susie:

I wouldn’t object to meeting him because what he did was so selfless out of compassion and wanting to help people . . . if he was willing to meet then you know he wants to know more about you.

Linda used to think it was a compassionate donation when she was little, but now she has:

. . . a more pessimistic view, I mean he got paid to do it, that was his motivation.

Susie clarified that the donor did not get paid, but only got expenses; Linda concurred that he probably did do it as a really nice gesture but that she does not think about it anymore:

It’s not like you had a dad and he left and you have to adjust, you’ve never had one, you can’t compare it, some people have a dad, some don’t . . . You don’t need a dad to be happy . . . It doesn’t feel like an interesting story just [my] life . . . I am grateful to him I don’t feel I need the donor in my life. [I] managed fifteen years without him I can manage the rest of my life without him. When I was little I might have needed a dad more.

Implicit here is the recognition that having a donor is not the same as having a dad. Their donor is seen as having his own life and perhaps that is why they do not seem to claim his children as their half-siblings in quite the same way.

The implications of telling others for all the parties involved

Both girls remembered it as quite hard work having to explain the nature of their conception to friends at primary school. Susie recalled that other children would say:

. . . “you must have a dad everyone has a dad” and then other children didn’t really understand how babies are made.

Linda felt that same sex relationships are more common now and more normalised in society as people have different sorts of families. In Year Eight though, she decided to make a presentation on donor conception, because she was tired of having to talk about her sister and having to explain herself:

It was good, there were lots of questions and answers and people got to u...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
• ABOUT THE EDITOR AND CONTRIBUTORS
• STATEMENT OF CONFIDENTIALITY
• FOREWORD
• PART I AN OVERVIEW OF THE PSYCHOLOGICAL ISSUES RELATED TO REPRODUCTIVE TECHNOLOGY
• PART II DONOR CONCEPTION: AN EXPLORATION OF SOME OF THE ISSUES FACING INDIVIDUALS AND COUPLES
• PART III AN EXPLORATION OF THE IMPACT UPON CHILDREN OF KNOWING HOW THEY WERE CONCEIVED
• PART IV POSSIBLE IMPLICATIONS AND SPECULATIONS ABOUT THE FUTURE
• INDEX