Right or wrong

Nemesis · 21-01-2004, 15:26

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3414141.stm

orangebird · 21-01-2004, 16:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nemesis

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3414141.stm

Wrong, very wrong. The anonymity (sp??

) should be a right. This is only going to put off donors, which will jeopardise further medical research...

Stu038 · 21-01-2004, 16:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nemesis

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3414141.stm

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.

**Mick** · 21-01-2004, 16:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by orangebird

Wrong, very wrong. The anonymity (sp??

) should be a right. This is only going to put off donors, which will jeopardise further medical research...

I could not agree more, spot on OB.

22-01-2004, 23:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nemesis

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3414141.stm

Definitely wrong!

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

Fawkes · 22-01-2004, 23:40

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.

danielf · 22-01-2004, 23:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fawkes

Donations in over countries that have introduced this law haven't fallen.

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.

**Maggy** · 23-01-2004, 00:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by danielf

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.

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.

kronas · 23-01-2004, 00:13

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........

Fawkes · 23-01-2004, 00:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by danielf

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.

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

kronas · 23-01-2004, 00:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fawkes

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

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.......

danielf · 23-01-2004, 00:25

Quote:

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.

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).

Fawkes · 23-01-2004, 00:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by Incognitas

<snip>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.

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.

danielf · 23-01-2004, 00:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fawkes

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

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)

kronas · 23-01-2004, 00:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fawkes

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.

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.