Right or wrong

[luftys]

I think its wrong

Do you think they will give me my bucket back

[Julian]

Originally Posted by luftys

I think its wrong

Do you think they will give me my bucket back

Only if you promise to fill it.

[luftys]

Originally Posted by Julian

Only if you promise to fill it.

not again

Originally Posted by Sociable

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

Thanks

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Xaccers]

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

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Graham

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.

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)

[Sociable]

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.

[Stuartbe]

Originally Posted by Sociable

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 gets away from individuals simply seeing it as a way to making easy cash and thinking no more of it than that.

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.

Well said m8

[Xaccers]

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.

[ntluser]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

I would like to donate sperm for altruistic 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.

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.

[Sociable]

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.

Originally Posted by kronas

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.......

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'.