Select Page

11.- Don de gametes / Donation of gametes — CHURCH OF FRANCE / États généraux de la bioéthique- Which world do we want for tomorrow? The brave new world…

11.- Don de gametes / Donation of gametes — CHURCH OF FRANCE / États généraux de la bioéthique- Which world do we want for tomorrow? The brave new world…

State of play

The “dona­tion of gametes” is the con­tri­bu­tion made to a cou­ple by a third of its own gametes so that, thanks to these donat­ed gametes, a child is con­ceived for this couple[1]. This con­tri­bu­tion, reg­u­lat­ed by the law of 29 July 1994, is pos­si­ble for med­ical­ly assist­ed pro­cre­ation in two sit­u­a­tions: the risk of trans­mis­sion to the child or to a mem­ber of the cou­ple of a par­tic­u­lar­ly seri­ous dis­ease; the cou­ple can­not pro­vide the gametes nec­es­sary for the con­cep­tion of a child. Dou­ble dona­tion of gametes (sperm and oocyte) is pro­hib­it­ed: the child must be bio­log­i­cal­ly linked to at least one mem­ber of the couple.

From the 1970s onwards, dona­tion was con­sid­ered for the pur­pose of car­ry­ing out an MQP for the ben­e­fit of a cou­ple, with­out tak­ing its con­se­quences for the child into con­sid­er­a­tion. Only the preser­va­tion of the cou­ple’s inti­ma­cy with their child was impor­tant, with­out the exter­nal father or moth­er break­ing it off. Hence the anonymi­ty of the gift that pro­duces the era­sure of these, which has not been dis­cussed as such.

Because of anonymi­ty, nei­ther the donor, nor the recip­i­ents, nor the child knows their respec­tive identities[2]. In case of ther­a­peu­tic neces­si­ty for the child born from such a dona­tion, the doc­tor may access non-iden­ti­fy­ing med­ical infor­ma­tion relat­ing to the donor[3].

The Nation­al Con­sul­ta­tive Ethics Com­mit­tee (CCNE) notes that “the long prac­tice of CECOS as well as an old­er tra­di­tion con­cern­ing blood and human organ dona­tion has led to the accep­tance of the prin­ci­ple of anonymity”[4]. The prac­tice for blood and organs has been applied to gametes which, how­ev­er, have a spe­cif­ic and unique voca­tion: the pro­cre­ation of a new human being. This essen­tial dis­tinc­tion does not seem to have been ful­ly con­sid­ered, even though our law leg­is­lates gamete donation.

Stim­u­lat­ed by the prac­ti­cal pos­si­bil­i­ties of know­ing the bio­log­i­cal or genet­ic trac­ing between gen­er­a­tions, the first donat­ed chil­dren, now adults, put pres­sure to know their ori­gin. This has called into ques­tion the prin­ci­ple of anonymi­ty. How­ev­er, with each leg­isla­tive revi­sion, this prin­ci­ple has been main­tained because its lift­ing cre­ates as many dif­fi­cul­ties as it solves.

Elements of discernment

The dona­tion of gametes car­ries out the con­cep­tion of this child by delib­er­ate­ly exclud­ing one of its par­ents in favour of a par­ent of inten­tion, which deprives the child of a bio­log­i­cal basis of its fil­i­a­tion. It denies the uni­ty of the per­son in its bio­log­i­cal, psy­cho­log­i­cal, social, spir­i­tu­al dimensions.

In French law, this does not seem to be a prob­lem, so much fil­i­a­tion is not reduced to bio­log­i­cal: adop­tion is the vis­i­ble sign; but also, the “pre­sump­tion of pater­ni­ty” which des­ig­nates the hus­band as father and the recog­ni­tion by a man of a child as his own is not ver­i­fied. Yet this link is not indif­fer­ent. Three sit­u­a­tions, among oth­ers, show this:

If parent­age is estab­lished with­out ver­i­fi­ca­tion, it is pre­sumed to cor­re­spond to bio­log­i­cal real­i­ty. If this is not the case, it can be chal­lenged in court and destroyed: when two men claim pater­ni­ty of the same child, the judge decides in favour of the bio­log­i­cal father.
The impor­tance of the bio­log­i­cal link in parent­age is revealed by the legal­ly repara­ble harm result­ing from the acci­den­tal exchange of chil­dren at birth: this harm is obvi­ous: it is not indif­fer­ent to being the prod­uct of one or another.
In med­ical­ly assist­ed pro­cre­ation, harm is rec­og­nized to cou­ples who suf­fer a hos­pi­tal error in the use of gametes or the allo­ca­tion of embryos. If it is true that the genet­ic link may appear sec­ondary, even indif­fer­ent, in mat­ters of parent­age, why do these cou­ples claim harm? The Agence de la bio­médecine notes that, in almost all cas­es, these cou­ples pre­fer abortion.
Faced with these ques­tions, CCNE con­sid­ers that “eth­i­cal reflec­tion must exam­ine the mean­ing of human gen­er­a­tion, in par­tic­u­lar with the help of the human sciences”[5]. To do this, two aspects must be con­sid­ered: on the one hand, secre­cy and, on the oth­er hand, the ori­gin itself.

For secre­cy, eth­i­cal reflec­tion is tough. It would be an “injus­tice” (CCNE) to hide a child’s mode of con­cep­tion from them. To reveal it to him is to try to give mean­ing to his beget­ting and run the risk of see­ing him run up against the anonymi­ty which pre­vents him from know­ing his bio­log­i­cal origin.

For beget­ting, it is use­ful to think from the right of the child[6], from het­ero­sex­u­al­i­ty where the com­ple­men­tar­i­ty of the mas­cu­line and fem­i­nine is played out, from the sym­bol­ic val­ue of the gen­er­a­tions, and from the uni­ty of the per­son where bio­log­i­cal, phys­i­cal, psy­che, social, cul­tur­al and spir­i­tu­al are unified.


Lift­ing of anonymi­ty. Some believe that com­pen­sat­ing for the removal of the bio­log­i­cal link by lift­ing the donor’s anonymi­ty. Would the iden­ti­ty infor­ma­tion be suf­fi­cient? Accord­ing to the law, knowl­edge of bio­log­i­cal iden­ti­ty both for chil­dren exchanged at birth and for cou­ples in MPA process­es under­go­ing gamete error, does not erase the harm suffered.

In the end, gamete dona­tion rais­es a sim­ple ques­tion: is it impor­tant, or not, to be bio­log­i­cal­ly derived from some­one? The law express­es an unease when it pro­hibits the dou­ble dona­tion of gametes: if the bio­log­i­cal link is impor­tant, how can the child be deprived of it, if only in a branch? If it’s not, why demand it in one of the branches?

CCNE notes that “the con­quest of genealog­i­cal traces by a grow­ing num­ber of our con­tem­po­raries shows enough that this need to become affil­i­at­ed with an ances­try is far from hav­ing dis­ap­peared with time. By mak­ing us exist as a link in a fam­i­ly chain, the fam­i­ly tree mod­er­ates the irra­tional­i­ty of our pres­ence in the world”[7].

These few exam­ples show that the bio­log­i­cal ref­er­ence is impor­tant. This is all the more true since the protests of the first gen­er­a­tion from dona­tions no longer allow us to act as if gamete dona­tion had no con­se­quences for the child. More­over, com­put­er tools now allow her to find her anony­mous sire.

The rights of the child. From the legal point of view, the use of gametes out­side the cou­ple does not seem com­pat­i­ble with respect for the rights of the child. Indeed, arti­cle 7–1 of the Inter­na­tion­al Con­ven­tion on the Rights of the Child, rat­i­fied by France, estab­lish­es “the right of every child, as far as pos­si­ble, to know his or her par­ents and to be brought up by them”. How­ev­er, the orga­ni­za­tion of gamete dona­tion by law cur­rent­ly pre­vents chil­dren from know­ing their bio­log­i­cal father or mother.

Nei­ther full adop­tion nor child­birth under X makes it pos­si­ble to put into per­spec­tive the exclu­sion of one of the child’s par­ents by donat­ing gametes. Indeed, the pos­si­bil­i­ty offered to a woman to give birth in secret is in the child’s inter­est by pro­tect­ing him against the risk of infan­ti­cide or aban­don­ment. And if full adop­tion is an obsta­cle to the child’s orig­i­nal fil­i­a­tion, it is in his inter­est: to give him a fam­i­ly when he is deprived of it by the mis­for­tunes of life.

For gamete dona­tion, it is the oppo­site: it frag­ments the child’s fil­i­a­tion by oust­ing one of his bio­log­i­cal par­ents to sat­is­fy the adult’s desire. This desire for a child, how­ev­er legit­i­mate, is lim­it­ed by respect for the rights of the child, since “the best inter­ests of the child must be a pri­ma­ry con­sid­er­a­tion”, accord­ing to the Inter­na­tion­al Con­ven­tion on the Rights of the Child (art. 3–1).

Feb­ru­ary 2, 2018


  1. Art. L. 12441 du Code de la san­té publique. Voir J.-R. BINET, Le droit de la bioéthique, LGDJ, 2017, p. 246–251.

[2] Art. 16–8 du Code civ­il repris à l’article L.1211–5 du Code de la san­té publique : « Le don­neur ne peut con­naître l’identité du receveur, ni le receveur celle du don­neur. Aucune infor­ma­tion per­me­t­tant d’identifier à la fois celui qui a fait don d’un élé­ment ou d’un pro­duit de son corps et celui qui l’a reçu ne peut être divulguée. »

[3] Art. L. 1244–6 du Code de la san­té publique.

[4] Avis n° 90 du 24.11.2005, p. 12. Les Cen­tres d’étude et de con­ser­va­tion des œufs et du sperme humains (CECOS), créés en 1973, ont mis en place la règle de l’anonymat qui, 20 ans après, a été inté­grée à la loi du 29.07.1994. Le CECOS con­naît l’identité du don­neur et cer­taines de ses car­ac­téris­tiques ; il s’arrange pour que l’enfant, issu du don, soit adéquat au cou­ple receveur. Ensuite, « l’anonymisation du dossier, imposée par la loi, sera faite et va ren­dre « sans iden­tité » ce qui est par­faite­ment iden­ti­fié, faisant du don­neur un dis­trib­u­teur trans­par­ent de « pro­duit géné­tique » » (ibid., p. 13).

[5] Avis n° 90, p. 5. « La dis­so­ci­a­tion quelle qu’elle soit entre la dimen­sion biologique et la dimen­sion sociale de la fil­i­a­tion n’est jamais anodine. […] Le bien de l’enfant est pour le moins bous­culé par ces dis­so­ci­a­tions où la pri­or­ité sem­ble être don­née à la notion de « pro­jet parental » qui con­fisque à son seul prof­it le statut de l’enfant. » (ibid., p. 23 et 26).

[6] Cf. Con­gré­ga­tion pour la doc­trine de la foi, Instruc­tion Don­um vitae, 22.02.1987, note 32 : « Il est légitime d’affirmer le droit de l’enfant à avoir une orig­ine pleine­ment humaine grâce à une con­cep­tion con­forme à la nature per­son­nelle de l’être humain. La vie est un don qui doit être accordé d’une manière digne aus­si bien du sujet qui la reçoit que des sujets qui la transmettent. »

[7] Avis n° 90, p. 6. L’ultime con­clu­sion du CCNE sem­ble faire fi des objec­tions éthiques qu’il met pour­tant en lumière.


You access our webi­na­rs videos on:


Religious Helping Trafficking Victims along the Road of Recovery (ON-DEMAND VIDEO WEBINAR)

Religious Working In International Advocacy Against Human Trafficking (ON-DEMAND VIDEO WEBINAR)

Impact Of Human Trafficking On Health: Trauma (ON-DEMAND VIDEO WEBINAR)

Impact Of Human Trafficking On Health: Healing (ON-DEMAND VIDEO WEBINAR)

International Prosecution Of Human Trafficking — Where Are We Now? (ON-DEMAND VIDEO WEBINAR)

International Prosecution Of Human Trafficking — What can be done? (ON-DEMAND VIDEO WEBINAR)

International Prosecution Of Human Trafficking — Best Practices (ON-DEMAND VIDEO WEBINAR)

Demand As Root Cause For Human Trafficking – Sex Trafficking & Prostitution




Human Trafficking — Interview with Prof. Michel Veuthey, Order of Malta — 44th UN Human Right Council 2020

POPE’S PAYER INTENTION FOR FEBRUARY 2020: Hear the cries of migrants victims of human trafficking


Church on the frontlines in fight against human trafficking



Catholic social teaching

Doctrine sociale de l’Église catholique

Register to our series of webinars adlaudatosi on Human Trafficking


You have successfully registered !