Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40384612›Full record

ArticleHuman fertility (Cambridge, England)2025

Warnock and its contested legacy in relation to donor conceived families: the case for regulatory reform.

Caroline A B Redhead, Nicola Barker, Marie Fox, Lucy Frith

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Human fertility (Cambridge, England), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Caroline A B RedheadManchester Law School, Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-7464-2853
Nicola BarkerSchool of Law and Social Justice, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-4223-713X
Marie FoxSchool of Law and Social Justice, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-7497-2070
Lucy FrithCentre for Social Ethics and Policy, Department of Law, The University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-8506-0699

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A generation on from the Warnock Report, the regulatory system it proposed remains largely intact, despite significant changes in the fertility sector, legal culture and wider society. In this article, we trace Warnock's legacy, focusing on the context of gamete donor conception. Drawing on illustrative examples from the ConnectedDNA research project, we analyse two aspects of Warnock's proposals - its recommendation that gamete donors should be anonymous and its key assumption that only the 'triad' of donor, recipient(s) and donor-conceived people have an interest in receiving information about each other. The jettisoning of donor anonymity coupled with a questioning of Warnock's assumptions about the meaning of 'family', illustrate the challenges inherent in a key Warnock objective: to 'future proof' fertility law. Both the global market in gametes and embryos and the accessibility of Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing (DTCGT) technologies were wholly unforeseen by Warnock. Similarly, contemporary understandings of donation, families, kinship and relatedness exist in tension with Warnock's original assumptions and, thus, with the principles underpinning the legislative framework. Given this, we recommend three specific reforms to the regulation of donor conception: (1) an urgent review and reformulation of information-sharing provisions, particularly with regard to donor-siblings; (2) an expansion of counselling and support provisions for those affected by donor conception; and (3) the effective imposition of a global ten-family limit. More generally, we suggest that piecemeal and

Indexed as

Donor ConceptionTissue DonorsFemaleGenetic TestingHumansMaleOocyte DonationReproductive Techniques, Assistedcounsellingdirect to consumer genetic testingdonor anonymitydonor conceptionlaw reformWarnock Report

Identifiers

PMID40384612
PMCPMC12306665

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.