Friend or stranger?

Surrogacy and donor conception – two models

Following my last blog Why do donors withdraw consent?, I’ve been reflecting on the difference between the surrogacy model and the donor conception model in the UK.

Like donor conception, surrogacy in the UK is non-commercial. They both follow a broadly altruistic approach where the donor or surrogate’s expenses are covered and there is often some ‘compensation’ for time and inconvenience, but no payment beyond that. However, the way the two individuals – the surrogate or the donor – are treated in relation to the intended parents is quite different.

Surrogacy UK is one of the main organisations that support surrogates and intended parents. It’s a not-for-profit membership organisation and has a ‘friendship first’ model. They bring together surrogates and intended parents who meet and review each other before taking a first step towards forming a ‘team’. There’s a courtship stage where the team get to know each other better, gradually weaving in conversations about the surrogacy arrangement and how that might work. The whole process takes time and commitment. And that’s well before any pregnancy.

There is a huge emphasis on building a relationship and ensuring both parties have time to forge a close connection and discuss all the details of the arrangement they are entering into. The process helps ensure that the participants are aligned and have had time to explore and resolve any points of difference. The complexity of the legal situation around surrogacy to some degree forces things to move slowly, which inadvertently supports the friendship model. And that slow process helps to build trust as well as ensure a strong foundation for what is going to be a lifelong connection if a child is born as a result. It’s a very person-centred model.

For people going to a UK clinic for donor conception the model is different. Although prospective parents might get the chance to read a donor’s profile and have some autonomy in the selection process, there’s no possibility of meeting the donor. That isn’t part of the arrangement. The intention is for this person to remain anonymous to the parents and child until the child turns 18, at the very least.

So, whereas the surrogacy model draws the parties together as a team, the donor conception model keeps them separate.

Is it just that surrogacy is legally and practically much more complex and therefore demands a different model? Does it partly represent a throw back to an earlier time, when donor conception was rooted in secrecy and silence?

With surrogacy, there’s often a fear that the surrogate might change her mind about the baby, so building a trusting relationship is much more significant and important. With donor conception, perhaps there’s a different fear – that if prospective parents met the donor and formed a connection that the boundaries would be too blurred and roles could be confused, particularly by a child. Prospective parents may worry that a child will form a closeness to the donor in a way that wasn’t intended or agreed. For whatever reason, the answer has been to keep them apart.

Of course, some people do look for a closer connection with the donor and specifically choose a known donor or approach a family member to be their donor. However, we know that those arrangements can also be complex and don’t always run smoothly. In the excitement of wanting to create a family, some of these known donor agreements are entered into too quickly and without getting all the protections and foundations in place. Perhaps that’s partly because there isn’t an organisation supporting them and guiding the process.

Interest in informal sperm donor arrangements is growing. This may be partly driven by clinic costs, but it may also be because people are looking for a more personal connection with the person who is contributing half the DNA that will create their child. In 2023, the UK’s Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) did explore options for early access to contact information, allowing families and donors to connect well before a child reaches 18. This could potentially be proposed through a law change, although for now it’s just an idea.

As usual, it’s complicated. But as our understanding of genetics and identity changes, maybe the way we view donors is also changing. And perhaps there’s something in the ‘friendship first’ model that’s worth including.

Nina Barnsley
1 November 2026