Right or wrong
 

Re: Right or wrong
 

Wrong, very wrong. The anonymity (sp?? :dunce: ) should be a right. This is only going to put off donors, which will jeopardise further medical research... :shrug:

Re: Right or wrong
 

I can see why adopted kids would want to know about where they come from, why their birth parents had to give them up etc. and am all in favour of it. Everyone needs to know their personal history. Not quite so sure about this though, The chances of a couple having to have use donated sperm and eggs is pretty remote I would have thought, so any offspring are going to "belong" biologically to one of the parents. Surely a bit of honesty by the parents should be enough.

The current plans seem fine in principle, but the report itself highlights the possibility of kids turning up on the doorstep 18 plus years after the donation.

What happens if your sitting watching telly one night with your family and a knock on the door turns out to be a kiddie thats having problems with their life and has come to find you cos your the biological parent. The guilt side of things then kicks in and you start thinking about your responsibilities towards this individual.

The report mentions no legal responsibilities attached, but thats only any good till the first time its contested in court and a precedent is set.

Bit of a Pandora's box to my mind.

Re: Right or wrong
 

I could not agree more, spot on OB. :)

Re: Right or wrong
 

Definitely wrong!

I'm glad to hear, however, that, if the child *does* trace the biological parent, they can't be held "financially liable"!

Re: Right or wrong
 

I think its right, I was surprised I'm the only one so far. This law isn't retrospective, so the donors will know that they can be traced before they donate. Donations in over countries that have introduced this law haven't fallen.

Re: Right or wrong
 

If that's the case, then why not give prospective donors the choice of anonimity? I think you should at least have the option to remain anonymous.

Re: Right or wrong
 

I think many may have missed the reallly important point.Some children who are the result of donated sperm may need to know medical details because of inherited diseases but up until now they have had no hope of retrieving this info.

I think that for medical reasons it should be allowed.Same goes for egg donation children.

As for the needing to know where you come from well I find this part hard to understand.Surely the fact that you already have two loving parents should be enough for a child.It must be very wounding for a father to find that a child would rather know their 'real' father. :(

Re: Right or wrong
 

i think its right, you cannot call the child your own litirally, its not the same feeling if one half had to have help from someone elses biological parts, sure you can 'act' as if it is yours, but ultimately it would be wrong to carry on in the childs life in to there adult life, to not tell them who gave them the chance to be here is wrong........

Re: Right or wrong
 

Because giving donors the choice of anonymity removes the choice of child to know their biological parent. This law gives both sides a choice.

Re: Right or wrong
 

i dont see quite why there is such a big issue over it really, if you dont want to donate its up to you, this law is correct and for once it actually favors the child, if i found out i was not the child of my parents, but only one half i would want to trace the parent who gave the chance of life without him/her it would not be possible for me to be here.........

can people stop being selfish for once, pussyfooting around over the issue.......

Re: Right or wrong
 

Hmmm, I can see your point (good one as well). Though normally, children obviously don't have acess to their parents' medical records, they do know what diseases run into the family, so they know what risks they might run, and a donor child doesn't (though at present there is a system in place to keep you from marrying your sister).

However, I don't think this is the reason the new legislation is put into place. In fact, there is no mention of it in the article. All that is mentioned is that children have the 'right' to know who their parents are. I think the biological father should have a say in that (or at least have the choice to remain anonymous).

Re: Right or wrong
 

Many adopted children that seek their biological parents in later life love their adopted parents very much. I personally think that the people that bring you up play the most important role, but I guess it depends on whether you believe nature or nurture make us who we are or if its a combination of the two.

Re: Right or wrong
 

But isn't there under present law a system in place where the child can try to contact the parent and the parent can choose whether or not to remain anonymous? The choice for the donor under the new law is to donate or not. If he chooses to donate, he might be faced with the 'knock on the door' 20 years later. And 20 years is a loooong time. I for one know that I don't stand by a few of the decisions I made 20 years ago (or the reason for those decisions for that matter)

Re: Right or wrong
 

i agree with that, the parents that have watched your grow in in to a young boy, teen, adult, helped you through the highs the lows, the pain should not be forgotten if they have treated you and nurtured you the correct way, irrespective of that, you should have the right to know who your biological parent is with out that person you would not have had that chance of life.

Re: Right or wrong
 

we all have regrets, but as i said before you should not be selfish of yourself, i would not expect much from the parent who gave me the chance of life.

Re: Right or wrong
 

But that's the point...

I (or you) might decide to donate sperm today for altruistic reasons: helping a couple that can't have children (btw your sperm is preferred, as you are 20 years younger than me). This knock on the door comes 20 years later, when you may be facing issues you couldn't dream of when you decided to donate. Why would you be selfish if you want to remain anonymous when your deed was altruistic to start with?

Let's face it. You don't know who what your life will be like 20 years down the line, or who is going to be at the door (being a firm believer in nurture when it comes to social behaviour)

Kronas: you could be knocking on my door :eek: ;)

Re: Right or wrong
 

Well my view is pretty simple - it's wrong.

It should be the right of anyone who voluntarily donates to do it anonymously [if they wish].

Once again the state decides to interfere where it is not wanted. :rolleyes:

Re: Right or wrong
 

Interesting question this whole nature/nurture debate?

Before I begin I must declare a †œpersonalÃÂà ‚¢ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ã‚ƚÂÂ� interest as, at a guess, I am not alone in this forum having both a natural and adoptive father.

I owe much of who I am today to both my upbringing and to my genetic inheritance both of which have played a part but in different ways.

As I grew up I only ever knew my adoptive father and in fact it was only in my teenage years I began to even become fully aware that I was adopted. My mum had separated from her first husband a few months before I was born and remarried a few years later.

It was to be a further 20 years when i was 35 before I finally just had to answer some of those questions that had bubbled below the surface for so many years about that part of me that clearly did not come from my "Dad".

Having been in that position of needing those questions answered (and not just the medical ones) I for one can 100% confirm I would have been lost without the opportunity to at least try to answer them by getting to know my natural father.

For this reason above all others I fully support this change which puts the child first, albeit that they will not be given access to the information until they themselves are adults. Many may not even bother to follow up on the information but none should be denied the right to at least have that option.

My question is what will now become of all those other children already born via donor eggs and sperm in the period since this first became available and now?

I feel for the many that will, over time, come to ask the same questions I had asked only to be denied answers because of such a lack of forethought by the people framing the original laws allowing anonymity which are now thankfully being revised.

So what of the donors? Well anyone donating does so clearly in the knowledge that a possible, and even desired result of that donation, is the creation of a human life to which they are undeniably forever linked.

Last but not least, we have to also consider the "nurturing" parents. And here is, I suspect, the real reason some fear this new way of dealing with the longer term consequences of donor eggs and sperm could be problematic.

The fear is natural, that any seeking out of the "genetic" parent(s) will disrupt the new family, even if this happens many years later. I do not deny this can be a worrying time, but they really do not have anything to fear, as the reality is that such a search does not change the relationship with their child, and if anything usually strengthens the bonds which already exist.

The old maxim still holds true †œHonesty is always the best policyââ‚Ã⠀šÃ‚¬Ãƒâ€šÃ‚ÂÂ�.

The notion that your personal genetic history and heritage can be known to some faceless bureaucrat but denied to you as an individual defies any legal, moral or ethical justification.

Bit more than 2 cents worth but sorry I feel rather strongly on this issue.

Re: Right or wrong
 

i see your point i have seen many of other people's points as to why its a bad thing for this to happen, but i dont believe you should be playing around with a persons life, just think about it for a second put yourself in the other persons shoes, if they found out that they were adopted yes there is a chance they may find there parent but nothing is concrete this way if the child wants to know, then why not ? and the medical experts have stated they will tell donors before they enter in to any agreement...

thats right things change, i proberbly wont be here in 20 years time(alive)
as i said before its not just about nurturing it can also be biological as well..


is that a wish :eek: :D

well maybe i should donate some i have good 'churn' on it dont know about the quality though ;)

Re: Right or wrong
 

So take a complete medical history and a genetic sample that can be tested for possible congenital conditions before the sample is put into the "gene bank" (or, indeed, kept on file for subsequent use if new tests are developed).

There's no need that I can see for the "father" to be involved in the process, nor, indeed, traceable, after that.

Re: Right or wrong
 

(I'm sorry, but in replying to this I'm going to ask some difficult questions and make some hard points, but I think they *need* to be said.)

And then what happens if the adopted child discovers that they were the offspring of a rape or, even worse, an incestuous relationship?

Ok, this won't be the same in the case of donated sperm, but what if the father they track down turns out to now be an alcoholic or a drug user or in prison for something very nasty?

Even if they're not, personally speaking, were I to donate, I would *not* want someone knocking on my door in 20 years time saying "you're my father, deal with it" because I have no idea what sort of position I'd be in then and it could cause *me* more problems than those "resolved" for my "offspring".

The answer is *NOTHING* without the consent of the donor. To force public recognition on someone who had been guaranteed anonymity would be totally unjustified.

I donate blood. Whilst it is not involved in the creation of a life, it may well be involved in the *saving* of a life. But I have as little connection with that life as one that would be created by the donation of sperm.

Just because I might now share some genes with someone does *not* mean I necessarily want to or should be *required* to share anything else with them.

Speaking as a social worker, do you *really* think that's best in *all* cases??

Excuse me, but that "faceless bureaucrat" is a *real person*. Just as that faceless donor was also a *real person*. They have rights of their own, they have lives of their own, they have responsibilities to others that you may know nothing about.

If I were to make comments about "some faceless bureaucrat" in the Social Services Department making decisions on information that's only accessible to them, I'm sure you'd take exception.

What makes sperm donation different?

Re: Right or wrong
 

Fair points so I will try my best to address them one by one.


In each of the examples given I still maintain honesty and openness is the key.

In the first set, truth will always find a way through the "secret", trust me on this one. The aftermath of such secrets becoming known to the children is always devastating as they then not only have to face that truth, but also the knowledge that they were lied to by the very people they had relied on to be totally honest with them.

Good, bad or indifferent our genetic make up and "history" is a part of who we each are, but just a part. To be denied access to that part of who we are is, however, never a plus, as even though we can not change the past we can learn from it.

This is why yes, honesty is the best policy.


I think the key point I was trying to make here is that the act of donation should require the donor to think this aspect through more thoroughly as "anonymity" effectively and wrongly IMHO let the donors off the hook in the past just as the fiasco of "sealed adoptions" did in the past.

The long term consequences of that previous policy have only recently come to light across the globe with many facing serious problems as they grow up with a hole in their being where the truth should be.


This is not about "Public" recognition but a personal recognition of the link between the donor and the resulting child, who as I said from both personal experience and discussions with many others in the same situation WILL have questions about their identity that only the donor can answer. This is what needs to be considered fully by the donor when making that decision to donate.

I know the fear is that the change in policy could reduce the number of donors but in those locations where the policy has already changed the small dip initially has completely reversed now the situation has settled down and donors take on board this vital aspect of the responsibility they are taking on by making a donation.


My main comment on this is to point out the link between this attitude and that of the irresponsible people, both male and female, who participate in unprotected sex.

The women who treat the men as nothing but "sperm donors" and then shut the father out of the childââ‚ƚ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s life and also the fathers who later deny their responsibilities to the child are both equally guilty of robbing that child of a parent.

It is simply about remembering that each of us has to take responsibility for the consequences of our actions be that drunken unprotected sex with a stranger or the well meaning donation of eggs and or sperm in a clinical and controlled situation.

The reality for the child is that the fine distinctions made between these will mean little or nothing when it comes to working out just where they came from.


In a word YES, for all the reasons already given.


Tell this to a child desperate to know the truth about their origins.

To their shame, it was once Social Workers that held the key to this knowledge and Social Workers who came up with the notion of holding information about birth parents secret being in the best interests of the child.

They were wrong and have learned from that mistake largely as a result of later coming into contact with the results of those earlier decisions and many now deeply regret the harm they know they may played a part in causing.

Re: Right or wrong
 

Incog,

I don't actually think that this is actually an issue - from my past experiences.

Having never *donated* sperm I don't actually know the process, but we are familiar with other things in the system, and I would have thought that the same screening process would be in place.

If we want children then we will would need help, and although we cannot find out who helped us, we can find out about 'their' medical history.

Re: Right or wrong
 

I think in all of this we have to balance the right of the child to know who his/her father is with the right of the father to either play or not play a part in the life of the child given the circumstances at the time.

Personally, I agree that children ought to be told their parentage preferably by someone who loves and cares for them e.g. adoptive parents, long term foster parents etc. This person knowing the child would be able to give the sensitivity and gentleness to the discussion which the imparting of such knowledge requires.

In circumstances where the father is known, but has chosen not to play a part in the life of the child either as a donor, ex-lover etc I think it would be possible to agree some basic information that the child should have. It would also be wise to have a DNA sample of the father stored away and details of his known medical history on record. The privacy of the father could be protected by not revealing his location.

In the case of rape, the situation is far harder as there may be no information to pass on. Either way, it would also be a lot harder to explain to the child, but in time, when the child is able to understand, accept and appreciate the information I feel that they ought to be told, because hopefully by that time the child will have built up a loving, trusting relationship with his/her mother.

The problem with having 'family skeletons' is that they can pop out of the closet at the most awkward of times with the most dire of consequences. Honesty is the best policy because no matter how unpleasant the truth is, once you accept it you can move on with your life knowing that there will be no unpleasant surprises.

Re: Right or wrong
 

The other thing is that I feel this is slightly different to adoption - from what I understand, you, the adoptive parents, do not get to find out that much about the child - I would have thought that in a fair few cases toady it wouldn't even be possible to trace 'who donated the sperm' to a child that was put up for adoption, for reasons already stated. In addition to this, it probably wouldn't be in the child's best intrest if that *was* known.

The other thing is, again, as already stated, is that is pretty much an altruistic thing - and although the donation would still be if it wasn't annonymous, people may certainly be less likely to donate if there was any prospect of another child turning up at the door in twenty years time! It it'd be - "I'm John, 45, Married to my beautiful wife Jane for 18 years, with our two lovely kids, Jack, 16, And Jill 13. It's both our first marriage." when all of a sudden 19 year old Bob turns up at the door, "Hello Dad!". Bob may have gained a father, but this is gonna be a lot for the wife and kids to take in - and there could perhaps be a strong possibility that Jack an Jill could be loosing one!

Of course this can happen for egg donation too, but I don't mean to sound sexist, (but it's gonna), but I think in many ways the implications, whilst still as severe, are a little more 'explainable' - If a kid turned up at you door, and you'd never given birth, and said "Hello Mum" you'd know something was amiss - It'd be intresting to get a womans' point of view on this - If you found out your husband had a child, how would that go down?

Re: Right or wrong
 

Exactly - and you put it so much better than me!!

Re: Right or wrong
 

Scenario - Joe donates sperm whilst single. Joe later marries and finds that he cannot have children with his wife. They adopt. Later Joe's blood child arrives on the doorstep. I can see that causing a few problems.

I understand that where they have introduced this ( Holland ) there was an initial drop in "donations" . This has subsequently been reversed, but interestingly the average age of the "donor" has risen dramatically. The biggest source being married men.

Is it a donation when you get paid? ;)

Re: Right or wrong
 

Re: Right or wrong
 

nemster couldnt we have had a "undecided" or "not entirely convinced" option? why be so black and white about it :p

hmmmmm well on one hand i think that every child has the right to know who their biological parent is..... but on the otherhand sperm donation is something slightly different....... the person is donating sperm to possibly help someone.... whereas having a child through a one-night stand/having a fling/having a child adopted is something slightly different.......

Re: Right or wrong
 

I think its wrong

Do you think they will give me my bucket back :eek:

Re: Right or wrong
 

Only if you promise to fill it. :D

Re: Right or wrong
 

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: not again :rofl:

Re: Right or wrong
 

Thanks

Sorry, but I can't simply take that assertion "on trust" unless you mean that someone will always, thinking that "honesty is the best policy" tell the child something which they didn't know, didn't want to know and, were they to have had the option *never* wanted to know and would wish they could forget ever knowing.

So, by not being honest the aftermath is "devastating", but, by being honest, the aftermath will most probably be "devastating" anyway...?!

I fail to see how anonymity is "letting someone off the hook". What "hook" is this? Should they be introduced to the family the sperm is donated to? Should they be there at the birth? Should they be there when the child is growing up? Hell, if you're going to have any of this, why not have them there at the conception?!

Their *only* "connection" to the child is some donated genes, nothing else.

But *why*? Do they suddenly decide that the people who they've been calling "mummy" and "daddy" aren't their "proper" parents any more? Are they now frauds for lying and *pretending* to be the child's parents? Does it make them any less loving?

If that's the case, then the child should be told as soon as they're capable of understanding so they can grow up with the idea rather than having it dumped on them at a later date.

Whilst I think engaging in unprotected sex is foolish I really don't see this as a "link" between it and sperm (or, for that matter egg) donation, nor do I accept that they are "robbing the child of a parent" nor that there is any "responsibility" (or lack thereof) in donation.

Re: Right or wrong
 

I think the option should be left up to the doner.

Re: Right or wrong
 

Or, take a gene sample of the actual person, and then you'll be able to say for definite if that person is going to suffer from some genetic disease or not.
Even if your dad had some genetic disease, it doesn't mean you definitely will, only a gene test on your genes will show that.
So genetic history isn't really all that useful.
(remember gene tests show recesive genes too, so nothing can hide away to crop up later)

Re: Right or wrong
 

All I have been trying to do is give the child's perspective, having at one time been in a very similar situation and also having worked with many others who were also in the same situation.

Simple answer to all the points above is try to think like the child involved and not like the adults in this situation. The adults all get choices both then and now, but the child never did as things were, so all that this latest change does is redress that obvious imbalance.

Yes it means donors now need to take a step back and think through before becoming donors. Not exactly hard but it will at least get away from individuals simply seeing it as a way to making easy cash or indeed not really and thinking about it at all.

Sorry, but for me, involvement in the creation of a new life demands a higher degree of thought and responsibility even where all that is involved is donating sperm, be that in a clinical situation or a drunken romp.

This clearly singles out men as the main ones at fault for lack of thought or care, but anyone who knows any woman that has considered, let alone gone through with, egg donation will confirm the degree of thought given by women in reaching such a decison puts us guys to shame.

IMHO.

Re: Right or wrong
 

Well said m8 :tu:

Re: Right or wrong
 

I would like to donate sperm for aulturistic reasons.
I'd like to be able to give some unknown couple the possibility of becoming parents.
Because of the relationship I was in, I felt it would be unfair to my partner to donate when she and I couldn't have children.
Now I am single it's back on my mind.

Sure, I would like, 20 years down the line or whatever, to find out that my sperm was used and I have helped a couple have a kid or more, but I don't know if I would like to meet them.
What if I do marry someone who can't have kids, or we have kids and they die, how is my wife going to react to someone turning up on my door saying they are my son or my daughter?
And if I do have kids, how would they react to having an older brother or sister?
Worst case scenario it tears the family apart, as what happened when my aunt was contacted by her son who she was forced to give up for adoption.
Now she recieved a letter from the agency telling her that her son would like to get in contact, so the final choice was hers.
If this method is used for donors, then I don't have a problem with it. If I get a letter saying that my donation would like to get in contact, and give me the chance to talk it over with my family, then decide, I'd be happy with that.
I think a lot of people would.
But if the donation is freely given the ability to contact me directly, without warning, then I can see that causing a lot of problems in a lot of cases.

Re: Right or wrong
 

The problem with not knowing who your children are is that you are unable to prevent unacceptable relationships happening.

For example, a donor donates sperms which is used to fertilise a number of women. If the offspring of such women, say the son of one and the daughter of another, were to meet 20+ years down the line and fall in love, what would their legal position be in relation to each other if they chose to marry? And what would be the genetic implications?

Similarly if a 20 year old man donates his sperm and 20+ years later falls in love with the 20 year old daughter of one of the women who used his sperm, would the danger not exist that in a sexual encounter with her he would in fact be having sex with and/or fertilising his own daughter?

In effect for those reasons alone the donor would have to be aware of the children he had fathered and steps would have to be taken to prevent the sexual interactions of offspring both with themselves and their unknown father.

The donation of sperm is a genetic and legal minefield and the saying that 'it's a wise child who knows its father' is truer than ever.

Re: Right or wrong
 

Fair points Xaccers, and in fact the way your aunt was given the choice about contact is, I suspect, how the situation will be handled for all those already born under the system whereby donors were given anonimity. Effectively this will enable donors to be given the retrospective chance to change their minds about remaining anonymous.

This was the compromise solution arrived at in "closed" adoption cases and could well work to at least provide some degree of hope for those already being born as the result of sperm and or egg donation under the current legislation.

Re: Right or wrong
 

Quite right. I'm disturbed at how medical ethics in this area are so often weighted towards the 'rights' of the parents with so little regard for the responsibilities that go with it. Children are not accessories, or posessions to be desired. They are living, feeling people. Who are we to say whether it is right for them to want to know who their biological father is? Is it fair to deny them that knowledge just because it might make the parents feel uncomfortable? That seems to me to be extremely selfish on the part of the parents.

The overwhelming majority of children know who their natural father is. Why should those born thanks to medical intervention not enjoy that same 'right'? I don't think the lifestyle choices or the medical conditions of their parents are any reason to remove that 'right'.