Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Gamete donation in France: the future of the anonymity doctrine

  • Scientific Contribution
  • Published:
Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In France, since the approval of the first bioethics laws in 1994, the principle of the anonymity of sperm donors has prevailed. This choice is regularly challenged, namely by children who have been conceived under these conditions and have now reached adulthood. In this paper, we will briefly describe the reasons that led practitioners of assisted reproduction to endorse the anonymity principle in 1994. Secondly, we will elaborate on the reasons why this principle is becoming so controversial today. Finally, we shall examine two possible outcomes of the debate, highlighting their respective legitimacy as well as their consequences, as far as the rights of children, the notion of the family, and medical practice are concerned.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. In favor of maintaining anonymity: National Ethics Consulting Committee (Comité consultatif national d’éthique, CCNE) (2005); Academy of Medicine (2006); Graf (2009); Claeys and Leonetti (2010, p. 106ff). Note however, the committee chairman’s dissenting opinion on this point (p. 110); Leonetti (2011, pp. 39–47).

    Opposed to maintaining anonymity: Claeys and Vialatte (2008, vol. I, pp. 133–140); Conseil d'Etat (2009, pp. 40–43).

  2. Terra Nova (2010).

  3. Bioethics bill no 2911, October 20, 2010, French National Assembly, no 2011.

  4. Milon (March 2011, pp. 69–75 and pp. 196–199); see also the Senate debates recorded in the Journal officiel, April 7, 2011, p. 2561ff.

  5. However, under article L. 1244-6 of the French Public Health Code, the new law does classify “personal data identifying gamete or embryo donors, couples who receive the donations, or persons born following medically assisted procreation techniques involving a third-party donor” with the CNIL (Commission Nationale de l’Informatique et des Libertés), the French data-privacy authority.

  6. We refer here to an observation by Szejer (2010, p. 613).

  7. European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), February 2, 2002, case of Mikulic vs Croatia. http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?item=1&portal=hbkm&action=html&highlight=Mikulic&sessionid=83476105&skin=hudoc-fr. Accessed 15 December 2011.

  8. Thouvenin (1995, pp. 149ff, 163–164).

  9. For maternity, common law applies, and the woman who gives birth, even following an oocyte donation, is ipso jure the child’s mother. Conversely, paternity is established as the result of special consent in the presence of a judge or notary. For example, if the couple is not married and no legal presumption designates the father (in marriage, the mother’s husband is presumed to be the father of the child), the law imposes forced paternity on the man who signed the consent for donor procreation even if he does not sign the birth certificate. Furthermore, with the exception of special cases, the law forbids those have consented to assisted procreation from claiming or challenging the paternity of the child born as a result thereof on the grounds that paternity does not comply with biological truth (article 311–20, Civil Code). For a more detailed analysis of the legal mechanisms, see Neirinck (2010, pp. 259–261).

  10. See, among others, Widlöcher and Tomkiewicz (1985, pp. 44, 546); Vacquin (1991, pp. 130–149); Delaisi de Parseval and Verdier (1994, esp. chap. 5); Cadoret and al. (2003, p. 39).

  11. David (2010, p. 157).

  12. Hermitte (1996).

  13. Mehl (1999).

  14. Théry (2010, pp. 70, 84–93). Here, she is referring to the pioneering study by Bateman (1994).

  15. David (2010, pp.153–160).

  16. Jouannet (1997, pp. 16–20).

  17. Brunet (2011a, b).

  18. Iacub (1997).

  19. Théry (2010).

  20. Orfali (2011, p. 254); Tomlinson and al. (2010, pp. 163, 165).

  21. According to the findings of a nationwide survey carried out by the CECOS, the sperm donor’s average age is 38 ± 6 years (see Kunstmann and al. 2010, p. 93). Note that the CECOS exclude men over 45 from donation.

  22. Nordic Council of Ministers (2006, p. 22).

  23. Kunstmann and al. (2010). For more detailed conclusions, see Kalampalikis and al. (2009, p. 206ff.).

  24. Cheynet de Beaupré (2011, p. 2220); Binet (2011, p. 20).

  25. The second form of adoption accepted by French law, “simple adoption,” proceeds by addition instead of substitution: adoptive birthright is added to the original birthright. The child belongs to two families, but parental authority belongs to the adoptive family alone. Nevertheless, this second form of adoption is much rarer.

  26. Salvage-Gerest (2011, § 221–311, 315).

  27. Hamad (2001, p. 137 et 141).

  28. According to French Supreme Court ruling (Cour de Cassation, Civil Chamber 1) dated February 27, 1985, “one of the main goals of the 1972 law was to provide every individual with his true parental relationship.”.

  29. Terré and Fenouillet (2011, p. 412).

  30. The order dated March 28, 2000 was a major breakthrough, stating that “biological testing is a right unless a legitimate motivation exists for refusing to admit it as evidence.” (Revue Dalloz, 2000: 731, note T. Garé; Droit de la famille, 2000, June, no 72, obs. P. Murat.) In other words, if one party to a case asks the judge to order testing, the judge can no longer refuse to do so, unless he presents a legitimate motivation for his refusal.

  31. Art. 311-1: “apparent status shall result from a sufficient collection of facts showing a bond of parentage and relationship between a person and the family to which he is said to belong”; the constituent elements are cited in the following paragraph of the law (nomen, tractatus, fama).

  32. "Whenever they are not confined by statute within another period, claims regarding parentage are time-barred after 10 years as from the day when the person was deprived of the status that he claims, or began to enjoy the status that is contested against him" (art. 321, Civil Code); however, the claim is time-barred after 5 years when the apparent status is consistent with the record (birth certificate): where the apparent status consistent with the record has lasted at least 5 years no one may contest a parentage (art. 333, Civil Code).

  33. See Brunet (2011b).

  34. We extend the connotations of an expression borrowed from Golse (2009, p. 31).

  35. Mazzone (2000, 2010).

  36. The law dated January 22, 2002 on "access by adopted persons and people in State care to information about their origins" is codified in articles L. 147-1ff. of the Social Action and Families Code.

  37. See Le Boursicot (2006, p. 40), Marzano (2009).

  38. Théry (2007, p. 616–618).

  39. For further elaboration, see Brunet (2010, p. 235ff.).

  40. EHCR, Jäggi vs Switzerland, July 13, 2006. http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?item=1&portal=hbkm&action=html&highlight=J%E4ggi&sessionid=83476368&skin=hudoc-fr. Accessed 15 December 2011.

  41. Sweden was the first country in the world to lift the donor-anonymity rule (by a law passed March 1, 1985); the scope of the law was extended to cover oocyte donations on January 1, 2003. See Orfali (2011, p. 251ff.).

  42. In the Netherlands, a law leaving the choice on anonymity up to donors was abolished by new legislation passed on April 25, 2002, regulating the storage, processing, and publication of data about donors in cases of medically-assisted procreation. The new law applies only to donations made after June 1, 2004. However, note that the Dutch system makes the release to the child of information about the identity of the donor contingent on written consent from the latter. See Sijmons (2011, p. 227ff.).

  43. Swiss federal law dated December 18, 1998 on medically assisted procreation, going into effect January 1, 2001.

  44. In 2004, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act of 1990 was amended by regulation 1511, enabling donor-conceived children to access the identity of the donor for donations dating from April 1, 2005. Unlike Dutch law, UK legislation resembles Swiss law in recognizing the child’s absolute right to information making it possible for him to identify the donor, without the donor’s consent. Outside Europe, the same concept entitling donor-conceived children to broad access to donor identity can be found in the legislation of the State of Victoria in Australia (Assisted Reproductive Treatment Act 2008), and in New Zealand (Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Act 2004).

  45. The petitioner, adopted at the age of four, had obtained access to certain information about her biological mother from her adoption records, but it was insufficient to identify the mother. French social services had refused to release further information to her. Although the Court took care to note that “birth, and in particular the circumstances in which a child is born, forms part of a child's, and subsequently the adult's, private life guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention,” it ruled that the French law dated January 22, 2002 was sufficient to ensure fair balance between the protection of the privacy of the biological mother, who had given birth anonymously, and the child’s interest in having access to the identity of his biological parents. http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?item=1&portal=hbkm&action=html&highlight=Odievre&sessionid=83475929&skin=hudoc-fr. Accessed 15 December 2011.

  46. See EHCR, S.H. v. Austria, April 1, 2010. While considering that such a fair arbitration is required, the Court also ruled Austria’s restrictions on medically-assisted procreation were a form of discrimination (§ 84), but this ruling was overturned on appeal by the Grand Chamber, November 3, 2011, and the ECHR has yet to elaborate any further on the question of access to the identity of gamete donors. http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?item=1&portal=hbkm&action=html&highlight=S.%20%7C%20Autriche&sessionid=83476062&skin=hudoc-fr. Accessed 15 December 2011.

  47. Simon (1974).

  48. The association is called Procre´ation me´dicalement anonyme (PMA); the chairman is P. Tiberghien: http://www.pmanonyme.asso.fr.

  49. Mehl (2008), Delaisi de Parseval (2008), Théry (2010).

  50. These legal actions are grounded in the right for respect for private life (art. 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights) and its extension by the European Court of Human Rights to cover the concept of personal identity, mentioned above. Note that the interpretative authority of the rulings of this European jurisdiction is increasingly influential in French courts.

  51. See the accounts of certain experiences reported by Clément (2006, pp. 140–187).

  52. Kermalvezen (2008, pp. 106–107).

  53. Such as the Association des enfants du don (ADEDD): http://adedd-asso.blogspot.com. Cf. round table on anonymity in Leonetti (2011, pp. 166–187).

  54. For an analysis of these debates, see Mehl (2011, chap. 5).

  55. I. Jablonka (2006), Iacub (2004, esp. chap. 2 and 3).

  56. See Mehl (2011, p. 221ff.).

  57. See Kalampalikis et al. (2009, conclusion).

References

  • Académie nationale de médecine. 2006. Communiqué à propos de la proposition de loi relative à la possibilité de lever l’anonymat des donneurs de gametes. Bulletin de l’Académie Nationale de Médecine 190(7):1551–1552.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bateman, S. 1994. Les passeurs de gametes. Nancy: Presses Universitaires de Nancy.

    Google Scholar 

  • Binet, J.-R. 2011. La loi du 7 juillet 2011: une révision mesurée du droit de la bioéthique. Droit de la famille, Etude no 21.

  • Brunet, L. 2010. Le principe de l’anonymat du donneur de gamètes à l’épreuve de son contexte. Analyse des conceptions juridiques de l’identité. In Donner et après? La procréation par don de spermatozoïdes avec ou sans anonymat, ed. P. Jouannet and R. Mieusset, 235–252. Berlin: Springer.

  • Brunet, L. 2011a. Procréations médicalement assistées et catégories “ethno-raciales”: l’enjeu de la ressemblance. In Les catégories ethno-raciales à l’ère des biotechnologies, ed. G. Canselier, and S. Desmoulins, 135–154. Paris: Société de législation comparée.

  • Brunet, L. 2011b. Des usages protéiformes de la nature: Essai de relecture du droit français de la filiation. In L’argument de la filiation. Aux fondements des sociétés européennes et méditerranéennes, ed. P. Bonte, E. Porqueres, and J. Wilgaux, 285–323. Paris: Maison des sciences de l’homme.

  • Cadoret, A., G. Delaisi de Parceval, M. Gross, D. Mehl, and P. Verdier. 2003. Les lois du silence, Libération, December 11.

  • CCNE. 2005. Accès aux origines, anonymat et secret de la filiation (Avis no 90).

  • Cheynet de Beaupré, A. 2011. La révision de la loi relative à la bioéthique. Chronique: Dalloz, 2217.

  • Claeys, A., and J. Leonetti. 2010. Rapport d’information fait au nom de la mission d’information sur la révision des lois de bioéthique. Assemblée Nationale: no 2235.

  • Claeys, A., and J.-S. Vialatte. 2008. Rapport d’information. La loi bioéthique de demain. Office parlementaire d’évaluation des choix scientifiques et technologiques (OPECST): no 107.

  • Clément, J.-L. 2006. Mon père, c’est mon père. L’histoire singulière des enfants conçus par insémination artificielle avec donneur. Paris: L’Harmattan.

  • Conseil d’Etat. 2009. La révision des lois de bioéthique. http://www.conseil-etat.fr/media/document//etude-bioethique_ok.pdf. Accessed 15 Dec 2011.

  • David, G. 2010. Le don de sperme: le lien entre l’anonymat et le bénévolat. In Donner et après? La procréation par don de spermatozoïdes avec ou sans anonymat, ed. P. Jouannet, and R. Mieusset, 153–160. Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Delaisi de Parseval, G., and P. Verdier. 1994. Enfant de personne. Paris: Odile Jacob.

    Google Scholar 

  • Delaisi de Parseval, G. 2008. Famille à tout prix. Paris: Seuil.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graf, A. 2009. Etats généraux de la bioéthique, Rapport final, tome I, 44–45; Avis du panel de Rennes, Partie II, Annexes, p. 129, available via the French Health Ministry website.

  • Golse, B. 2009. L’adoption face au retour en force du biologique en matière de filiation. Revue Accueil, Enfance et familles d’adoption 150, February–March.

  • Hamad, N. 2001. L’enfant et ses familles d’adoption. Paris: Denoël.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hermitte, M.-H. 1996. Le sang et le droit, Essai sur la transfusion sanguine. Paris: Seuil.

    Google Scholar 

  • Iacub, M. 1997. La construction juridique de la nature dans la reproduction hors-nature: les fécondations artificielles dans les lois bioéthiques. In Démographie et politique, ed. F. Ronsin, H. Le Bras, and E. Zucker-Rouvillois, 161–173. Dijon: Éditions universitaires.

    Google Scholar 

  • Iacub, M. 2004. L’Empire du ventre. Pour une autre histoire de la maternité. Paris: Fayard.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jablonka, I. 2006. Ni père, ni mère. Histoire des enfants de l’Assistance publique (1874–1939). Paris: Seuil.

  • Jouannet, P. 1997. De père en père, don de sperme et origine. Cahiers Vie sociale et traitements 7, April 1997.

  • Kalampalikis, N., V. Haas, N. Fieulaine, and M. Doumergue. 2009. Enjeux éthiques et identitaires engagés dans l’acte de procréation avec don de sperme. Research report for the Agence de la biomédecine, Université Louis-Lumière Lyon 2.

  • Kermalvezen, A. 2008. Né de spermatozoïde inconnu. Paris: Presses de la Renaissance.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kunstmann, J.-M., P. Jouannet, J.-C. Juillard, J.-L. Bresson, and The Fédération française des CECOS. 2010. En France la majorité des donneurs de spermatozoïdes souhaite le maintien de leur anonymat. In Donner et après? La procréation par don de spermatozoïdes avec ou sans anonymat, ed. P. Jouannet, and R. Mieusset. Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Le Boursicot, M.-C. 2006. Les origines personnelles: histoire ou vérité biologique. Les cahiers du Comité consultatif national d’éthique 46, January–March.

  • Leonetti, J. 2011. Rapport fait au nom de la commission spéciale chargée d’examiner le projet de loi relatif à la bioéthique. Assemblée Nationale: no 3011, January.

  • Marzano, M. 2009. Secret et anonymat, Une approche philosophique de l’insémination avec don de sperme. Esprit 5: 129–131.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mazzone, J.-C. 2000. L’anonymat garant de la levée du secret de la conception dans l’IAD. Reproduction humaine et hormones 13(4).

  • Mazzone, J.-C. 2010. Le deuil de la fertilité dans l’insémination avec sperme de donneur. In Donner et après? La procréation par don de spermatozoïdes avec ou sans anonymat, ed. P. Jouannet, and R. Mieusset, 197–210. Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mehl, D. 1999. Naître? La controverse bioéthique. Paris: Bayard.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mehl, D. 2008. Enfants du don, Procréation médicalement assistée: Parents et enfants témoignent. Paris: Laffont.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mehl, D. 2011. Les lois de l’enfantement, Procréation et politique en France (1982–2011). Paris: SciencesPo ed.

    Google Scholar 

  • Milon, A. 2011. Rapport fait au nom de la commission des affaires sociales sur le projet de loi, adopté par l’Assemblée nationale, relatif à la bioéthique. Sénat: no 388, March.

  • Neirinck, C. 2010. L’anonymat du don de gametes. In Donner et après? La procréation par don de spermatozoïdes avec ou sans anonymat, ed. P. Jouannet, and R. Mieusset, 253–264. Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nordic Council of Ministers. 2006. Assisted reproduction in the Nordic countries. A comparative study of policies and regulation, 22. Copenhague: ThemaNord (505). http://www.norden.org/en/publications/publikationer/2006-505/at_download/publicationfile. Accessed 15 Dec 2011.

  • Orfali, K. 2011. Assisted reproduction and removal of anonymity in Sweden: Between a tradition of transparency and a novel status of the child. In Who is my genetic parent? Donor anonymity and assisted reproduction: A cross-cultural perspective, ed. B. Feuillet, K. Orfali, and T. Callus, 247–257. Brussels: Bruylant.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salvage-Gerest, P. 2011. La filiation par adoption. In Droit de la famille, ed. P. Murat, § 221–311 to 315. Paris: Dalloz Action.

  • Sijmons, J.G. 2011 Gamete donor anonymity under Dutch law. In Who is my genetic parent? Donor anonymity and assisted reproduction: A cross-cultural perspective, ed. B. Feuillet, K. Orfali, T. Callus, 227ff. Brussels: Bruylant.

  • Simon, R. 1974. Expérimentations et déplacements éthiques, A propos de l’insémination artificielle. Recherches de Science Religieuse 62: 515–539.

    Google Scholar 

  • Szejer, M. 2010. L’héritage encombrant des donneurs anonymes. Etudes 413: 607–617.

    Google Scholar 

  • Terra Nova. 2010. Assistance médicale à la procréation et adoption. Accès à la parenté (Report published by the Terra Nova foundation, work group chaired by G. Delaisi de Parseval and V. Depadt-Sebag: http://www.tnova.fr/essai/acc-s-la-parent-assistance-m-dicale-la-procr-ation-et-adoption).

  • Terré, F., and D. Fenouillet. 2011. Droit civil, les personnes, la famille, les incapacités. Paris: Dalloz.

    Google Scholar 

  • Théry, I. 2007. La distinction de sexe, Une nouvelle approche de l’égalité. Paris: Odile Jacob.

    Google Scholar 

  • Théry, I. 2010. Des humains comme les autres. Bioéthique, anonymat et genre du don. Paris: Editions de l’EHESS.

  • Tomlinson, M.J., K. Pooley, A. Pierce, and J.F. Hopkinson. 2010. Sperm donor recruitment within an NHS fertility service since the removal of anonymity. Human Fertility 13(3): 159–167.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Thouvenin, D. 1995. Les lois du 1er juillet 1994 et du 29 juillet 1994 ou comment construire un droit de la bioéthique. Actualité législative Dalloz.

  • Vacquin, M. 1991. Filiation et artifice, Le Supplément 130–149.

  • Widlöcher, D., and S. Tomkiewicz. 1985. Génétique, procréation et droit. Actes du Colloque. Paris: Actes Sud.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Paris Sorbonne, Paris, France

    Laurence Brunet

  2. CECOS, Cochin Hospital, 27, rue Fbg. St-Jacques, 75014, Paris, France

    Laurence Brunet & Jean-Marie Kunstmann

Authors
  1. Laurence Brunet
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jean-Marie Kunstmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Laurence Brunet.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Brunet, L., Kunstmann, JM. Gamete donation in France: the future of the anonymity doctrine. Med Health Care and Philos 16, 69–81 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-012-9431-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-012-9431-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation