Should Canada continue to permit anonymity for sperm donors?
What if You Never Knew Where You Came From?
Imagine finding out you have several genetic siblings, but no idea who your biological parent is.
Imagine finding out you have several genetic siblings, but no idea who your biological parent is. This is not just a hypothetical scenario, but rather a real concern in Canada, where there are no limits to sperm donation. In addition to this, Canada’s gamete donation regulations still permit donor anonymity, meaning children of anonymous donation do not have the legal right to learn the identity of their donor. Under the Assisted Human Reproduction Act, persons conceived through anonymous donations have no legal right to know their donor’s identity.
Meanwhile, countries such as Sweden, the Netherlands, New Zealand, and the UK have taken a different path, introducing programs which allow for donor identification at the age of 18. Sweden was the first country to do so, giving donor-conceived persons the legal right to know their biological parent’s information.
It is clear that maintaining anonymity creates conflict, but we also must consider the donor’s right to privacy. When these two interests collide, it creates an ethical dilemma that cannot be easily resolved through legislation. We must consider if it is truly in Canada’s best interest to remove anonymity in sperm donation.
Balancing Privacy and the Right to Know
The question of donor anonymity is stationed on a clear crossroads between ethics, privacy, and human identity. British bioethicist Mary Warnock, who helped shape the United Kingdom’s fertility laws, wrote
“I cannot argue that children who are told of their origins are necessarily happier, or better off in any way that can be estimated. But I do believe that if they are not told, they are being wrongly treated.”
Her writing captures the ethical tension of the issue. Even if there are no psychological benefits, the practice of being denied donor information feels fundamentally unfair. Warnock believed that every person deserves the chance to understand where they come from, and that regulations should respect their dignity and autonomy. Her reasoning helped inspire the UK’s eventual decision to end donor anonymity in 2005.
Still, the right to know must be held against the personal value of autonomy and the right to privacy. For many Canadian donors, anonymity is not to encourage secrecy, but rather, set boundaries. Those who donated years ago did so under the pretense their identity would remain confidential. Changing the law now would undermine this privacy, and could lead to unwanted contact or financial demands from donor-conceived recipients.
Prior to Canada’s ban for sperm donations in 2004, many donors were medical students simply looking to earn extra money. As bioethicist Juliet Guichon notes, “For some reason, people want to pretend that they are not procreating.” She argues that many young men at the time may not have fully considered the lifelong implications of their donation, or the fact that their genetic material could one day be traced back to them. These consequences are even clearer when looking at what has happened in recent years.
Understanding the Emotional and Social Costs of Secrecy
The recent story of three men from the same family fathering at least 600 children through informal sperm donation highlights the potential for serious psychological risks. For people conceived through sperm donation, anonymity and incomplete donor information can lead to identity confusion, prompting them to ask difficult and personal questions, such as “Who am I?” or “Do I have siblings that I don’t know about?”
This lack of information may also create serious concerns about their medical background. Without access to accurate family medical histories, people conceived through sperm donation may never know about the hidden inherited risks they may have. For example, a hereditary liver disorder that was found in two of those men from the story. Socially, the possibility of unknowingly meeting or forming relationships with genetic relatives increases the chance of unintended sexual relationships among biological half-siblings and reveals a gap in regulations that allow unmonitored, high-volume donations.
From a public health and equity standpoint, this case suggests that maintaining donor anonymity within Canada’s current system may weaken transparency, child welfare, and fair access to genetic information. This highlights the need to reconsider national policy, potentially moving toward identity release and clearer limits on the number of offspring per donor.
What Happens When Secrets Meet Science?
Even without changing regulations, technology is already changing what anonymity means. With the rise of genetic databases like 23andMe and AncestryDNA, donor-conceived individuals can often trace biological relatives through shared DNA, making true anonymity, that was once promised, nearly impossible.
Research shows that over 60% of users in major consumer DNA databases can be identified through third-party searches, even if they never submitted their own DNA. This situation raises significant privacy and ethical issues. Donors who were promised anonymity could be “outed” without their consent. At the same time, children might unexpectedly find genetic connections online.
Discovering this information can lead to feelings of confusion, identity disruption, or strain within families. As technology continues to move faster than regulations, Canada will need to reconsider its reproductive and privacy laws, and it should balance the right to know one’s origins with the right to respect the consent of donors.
Where Do We Go From Here?
The increasing availability of DNA testing and the recent cases of unregulated sperm donations in Canada reveal important ethical, psychological, and legal challenges in reproductive policy. These factors show that complete donor anonymity is no longer realistic and that current regulations fail to protect the interests of donor-conceived individuals. To promote transparency, protect privacy,
and avoid future harm, Canada should consider implementing identity-release policies, limiting the number of offspring per donor, and updating reproductive and privacy laws to match today’s technology and social conditions.
Interactive Questions
- How should policymakers weigh a donor’s right to privacy against a donor-conceived individual’s right to know their origins?
- When considering reforms to Canada’s sperm donation laws, how much weight should be given to social and emotional factors such as identity and family relationships, compared to legal and technological concerns.
Works Cited
Collier, Roger. “Disclosing the Identity of Sperm Donors.” Canadian Medical Association Journal 182, no. 3 (2010): 232–233. https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.109-3144..
Harper, Joyce. “The End of Donor Anonymity: How Genetic Testing Is Likely to Drive Anonymous Gamete Donation out of Business.” Human Reproduction 31, no. 6 (2016): 1135–1140. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dew065..
Lampic, Catharina, Annelie S. Svanberg, Jenny Gudmundsson, Per Leandersson, Nina Solensten, Annika Thurin-Kjellberg, Karin Wånggren, and Gunilla Sydsjö. “National Survey of Donor-Conceived Individuals Who Requested Information about Their Sperm Donor—Experiences from 17 Years of Identity Releases in Sweden.” Human Reproduction 37, no. 3 (2021): 510–521. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/deab275..
Legislative Services Branch. Consolidated Federal Laws of Canada, Assisted Human Reproduction Act. Last modified June 9, 2020. https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/a-13.4/..
Lofaro, Joe. “Quebec Looking to Limit Sperm Donations per Donor after 3 Men from Same Family Father Hundreds of Children.” CTV News, November 22, 2024.
https://www.ctvnews.ca/montreal/article/quebec-looking-to-limit-sperm-donations-per-d onor-after-3-men-from-same-family-father-hundreds-of-children/..
Scutti, Susan. “You Might Not Be Anonymous, Thanks to Genealogy Databases.” CNN, October 11, 2018. https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/11/health/genetic-privacy-study/index.html..
Splawinski, Ashley. “A Quebec Case Shows the Need for More Regulation on Sperm Donation in Canada.” Policy Options, August 2024. https://policyoptions.irpp.org/2024/08/sperm-donor-registry..
Warnock, Mary. “The Good of the Child.” Bioethics 1, no. 2 (1987): 141–151. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8519.1987.tb00023.x..
Wodoslawsky, Sascha. “Sperm Donor Attitudes and Experiences with Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing.” Andrology 4, no. 1 (2024): 36–42.
A Note, From Us
Thank you for reading this edition of our newsletter, Synapse. We’re grateful for your continued support and excitement as we grow our community.
1. Syn·apse: a junction between two nerve cells, consisting of a
minute gap across which impulses pass by dif usion of a
neurotransmitter.
In other words, where connection happens; Between neurons,
between ideas & subjects, and between people. Through BUSA,
we connect peers, philosophy, and science, in ways that spark
thought, dialogue, and discovery.
Until next month,
– BUSA
BUSA’s Newsletter Team
Lauren Alberstat – Layout & Design
Sophia Fernandes. – Research Coordinator
Lucas Makhlouf – Research Coordinator
Ugo Izuka – Information Analyst & Editor
BUSA UofT 
Leave a comment