Right or wrong

[kronas]

Originally Posted by danielf

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)

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.

[danielf]

Originally Posted by kronas

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.

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

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.

[Sociable]

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.

[kronas]

Originally Posted by danielf

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 .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?

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...

Originally Posted by danielf

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)

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..

Originally Posted by danielf

Kronas: you could be knocking on my door

is that a wish

Originally Posted by danielf

(btw your sperm is preferred, as you are 20 years younger than me)

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

Originally Posted by Incognitas

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Sociable

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.

(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".

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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?

[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.

[chambece]

Originally Posted by Incognitas

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.

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.

[ntluser]

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.

[chambece]

Originally Posted by chambece

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.

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?

[chambece]

Originally Posted by ntluser

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.

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.

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

[Julian]

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

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?

[Ramrod]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspap...972729,00.html

Swedes kept giving, despite the loss of anonymity

FEARS that removing anonymity from sperm donors will reduce the supply available are not supported by evidence from Sweden, which introduced the change in 1985.

[Bex]

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.......