[Sociable]

Originally Posted by Graham

(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.)

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

Originally Posted by Graham

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?

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.

Originally Posted by Graham

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".

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.

Originally Posted by Graham

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Graham

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Graham

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

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

Originally Posted by Graham

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?

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.