Background: Since 1994, oocyte donation in France must be organized anonymously, in compliance with the bioethics law. The donation is free and any publicity to enrol donors is forbidden. In this system, the recipients are encouraged to incite a donor to visit the recipient's fertility unit. These donors are called "symbolic" donors, since they allow the recipient to be entitred to receive oocytes from another anonymous donor. According to the law, this procedure can be performed both anonymously and non-anonymously.
Objectives: We wanted to study the implication of the anonymous system, focusing on the secret of the child's conception and on the relationship between the recipient family and the "symbolic" donor.
Material and methods: We contacted all the patients (n=83) who had children with oocyte donation in our center between 1988 and 1998. These patients participated in an interview conducted with a standardized questionnaire.
Results: Fourteen (17.8%) of the couples were lost to follow-up and three declined to participate. Five recipient couples preferred a non-anonymous donation. In all, 70% of the couples had not yet told their child about the donation. They had mentioned the IVF but not the donation despite of the fact that 50% of symbolic donors came from the family of the recipients, 34% from their friends, or 6% from their professional environment; 10% were not related to the recipients. Long after the child's birth, 25% of the recipients had no contact with the symbolic donor but 41% had selected her as the child's godmother and 15% of symbolic donors were the first to be informed of the birth of the child. After the donation, a gift was offered to the "symbolic" donor by 57% of couples, 33% did not know how to thank them (retribution is forbidden by law) and 10% of couples mentioned that their donor refused any gift. Concerning the donor whose oocytes were used, 63% of recipients did not want to know anything about her. 20% would have liked to have medical information and 13% would like to have all kind of information about her. Only 2% of recipients would have liked to know her identity and 2% would have liked to meet her.
Conclusion: In agreement with earlier reports in the literature, the majority (70%) of the parents did not inform their child about the oocyte donation even though the symbolic donor was in contact with the child (being his aunt or his godmother for example). The French system has created a double debt: one related to the real donor and another related to the symbolic donor. In the long run, the parents have found a way to humanize this technique: they have given a symbolic place of godmother to the volunteer donor.