We acknowledge and appreciate the comments provided in the letter to the editor. Thank you for the opportunity to respond. The matter of why South African gamete donor banks and agencies do not offer open-identity donation and how this question relates to the evolution of South African Law on this matter is put forward in the article by Thaldar and Shozi 1, who wrote, ‘South African (SA) gamete banks and gamete donation agencies do not offer open-identity donors, as it is generally believed that donor anonymity is a legal requirement in SA’ 1. Drawing on case law, they argue that egg donor agencies' current practice of not offering open identity gamete donation is a self-imposed limitation. We appreciate the correspondent drawing attention to these case law arguments; however, we do not believe this invalidates our argument in the paper about the current consequences for Australian recipients of anonymous donations. Prohibition of disclosure of certain facts. 19. No person shall disclose the identity of any person who donated a gamete or received a gamete, or any matter related to the artificial fertilisation of such gametes, or reproduction resulting from such artificial fertilisation except where a law provides otherwise or a court so orders. As legal scholars well versed in jurisprudence, Thaldar and Shozi 1 contend the interpretation of this regulation; however, they acknowledge that it reflects the understanding and practice within the South African fertility sector and the opinion of the South African Law Reform Commission (SALRC). In 2017, the SALRC stated that ‘The legal position in South Africa is that gamete donors… must be anonymous and it is an offence to reveal the identity of a gamete donor’ 3. In the 2022 article, Thaldar and Shozi's position departs from this view. They clarify that a more nuanced reading of statutory instruments and contemporary case law reveals the possibility of lawful open-identity donation in South Africa 1. Our article was not intended as a legal analysis of South African jurisprudence. Rather, we reported on prevailing clinical and psychosocial practices as conveyed through part of a large study of over 100 in-depth interviews with fertility specialists, nurses, embryologists, donor agencies, counsellors, donors and recipients operating within the current regulatory environment. In particular, in our article for the readers of this journal, we focussed upon the consequences for Australian recipients, as under current Australian regulations, donor anonymity is not permitted because of its known adverse effects on donor-conceived children. We acknowledge the ongoing legal arguments and advocacy being undertaken in South Africa on this issue and thank the correspondent for their comments and welcome the ongoing scholarly and legal debate on this matter. We also note that SALRC propose ‘that South Africa needs to reconsider anonymous gamete donation in surrogacy and in other types of assisted reproduction’ 3. We look forward to seeing how these evolving interpretations may shape future guidance, regulations and policy within the South African fertility sector. Nevertheless, until the practices and legal advice given to donor banks and clinics in South Africa are clarified, Australian recipients continue to receive anonymous donations with the consequences described in our article. We suggest the following change to our article. The sentence should read ‘Although South African law regarding anonymity is evolving 1, gamete donation via oocyte donor agencies is currently anonymous (in line with the National Health Act, 2003 and the subsequent regulations gazetted in 2012)’. Yours sincerely, Cal Volks Karin Hammarberg Andrea Whittaker The authors declare no conflicts of interest. “Misstatement of South African Law in Volks et al. (2025),” https://doi.org/10.1111/ajo.70064.
Volks et al. (Thu,) studied this question.