Queensland agrees to allow donor-conceived people the right to know the identity of their donor. Here’s why it’s important

Authors

Giselle Newton – Postdoctoral Research Fellow, The University of Queensland
Caitlin Macmillan – Casual Academic, Deakin University
Katharine Gelber – Professor of Politics and Public Policy, The University of Queensland

Last week, the Queensland government accepted in principle recommendations from a 2022 inquiry into the rights of donor-conceived people.

Donor conception is a technique to facilitate pregnancy using donated sperm and/or eggs.

Queensland is among the least progressive jurisdictions in Australia on donor conception. To date, it has no legislation governing donor conception, despite a senate inquiry recommending in 2011 that jurisdictions which didn’t yet have a statutory scheme in place should establish one “as a matter of priority”.

The government’s response to the inquiry indicated it supports allowing donor-conceived people to know the identity of their donor and siblings once they turn 18, regardless of when they were born.

In 2016, Victoria passed legislation enabling donor-conceived people to access identifying information about their donor. South Australia is also currently considering amendments to improve the operation of its donor conception register, and Western Australia is developing new legislation following a 2019 independent review.

Here’s why the Queensland government should move to implement the recommendations of the inquiry as soon as practicable.

5 reasons for urgent reform

Establishing a centralised, government-held register would bring Queensland in line with other jurisdictions that already recognise the rights of donor-conceived people. This includes Victoria, South Australia, NSW (for those born after 2010), and Western Australia (for those born after 2004).

This will also help pave the way for an equitable national standard and a national donor conception register, an approach supported by the Fertility Society of Australia and New Zealand.

There are five reasons legislating this as soon as possible in Queensland is essential.

1. Legislation needs to respond to technological advances. Donor-conceived people are already able to identify donors through informal channels following the rapid growth of direct-to-consumer DNA testing, coupled with social media. But DNA data is highly sensitive and donor-conceived people should have official pathways to information that don’t require them to exchange their personal data for information to large corporations.
2. Donor-conceived people who find out about their conception during early childhood have more positive attitudes towards their conception and better wellbeing compared to donor-conceived people who discover later in life. One of the inquiry’s recommendations was that birth certificates be annotated when a person is donor-conceived. This would discourage deception. The UK government is currently considering allowing donor-conceived people to contact their donor before 18.
3. Many donor-conceived people want to meet their donor and donor siblings. In everyday conversations, we often discuss our families, genetics, and resemblance. It’s unsurprising that donor-conceived people are interested in knowing about their genetic heritage to understand themselves and their cultural background. Knowing who one’s siblings are is also important to avoid sexual relationships.
4. Dealing with health issues often requires knowledge of one’s genetic heritage. If a donor-conceived person learns of a genetic condition, they may want to notify their donor and siblings.
5. Many donors want to find out about, and meet, their donor-conceived (adult) children. Many donors make themselves identifiable to their donor-conceived children. Reasons may include believing the donor-conceived person is entitled to information about their identity, wanting to provide avenues to seek information, or curiosity about how many people were conceived following their donation and their identities.

Some people have concerns about removing anonymity. But the conditions of anonymity promised by doctors were never legally binding. This legislation is retrospectively being applied to a period when there was no legislation.

Another concern is that it could jeopardise the number of people willing to donate sperm or eggs. But research suggests shifts from anonymous to identifiable donation aren’t detrimental to donor numbers. Rather, the type of people who donate changes. For example, this may encourage more donors in their 30s rather than late teens or early 20s.

Donor-conceived advocacy

Donor-conceived people have long been speaking out to agitate for reform in donor conception.

This reform is the result of decades of advocacy, and represents a key moment to enshrine donor-conceived people’s rights in legislation.

Dr Giselle Newton is a Postdoctoral Research Fellow at the Digital Cultures and Societies Hub, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences. She is a social researcher of technology, health and family with a background in sociology, media studies and linguistics. As a donor-conceived person herself, Giselle's advocacy is a critical aspect of her work.

Professor Katharine Gelber is Head of the School of Political Science and International Studies, and Professor of Politics and Public Policy. Her research is in the field of freedom of speech, and the regulation of public discourse.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.