kids allowed trace donor parents

Nasty_Girl

from sky news
"FERTILITY LAWS IN FORCE

Children conceived through sperm and egg donors now have the right to seek out their genetic parents once they turn 18.

But the new law is not retrospective, ensuring former donors will be allowed to remain anonymous.


Some fertility experts are concerned that removal of anonymity will deter donors from coming forward.

And with one in seven couples facing fertility problems they are keen to ensure a maximum supply of eggs and sperm.

Offspring are now able to try to track down their biological parents in the same way as those who are adopted. The donor, though, will not be able to trace a child.

Children seeking their donor parents will have to ask the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority to release the information.

But they will not be able to make any legal or financial claims on them.

Well lads what do ya think of that?
I think it'd be good for the kids to know if they had any diseases waiting for them but it'd have to be weird to make a decision to donate an egg to someone else and then have a person knocking on your door years later.

iguana

Nasty_Girl wrote:

I think it'd be good for the kids to know if they had any diseases waiting for them.

I don't know for sure, but I'd imagine that the donor clinics would have to do health checks, and at least have a medical file on the donor. Of course this wouldn't let you know about any health issues that crop up for the donor after the donation.

As for the tracing I think that a child has a right to know who their parents are, for personal as well as medical reasons. Those who are against this legislation use the argument that it will result in less donors, but I think that is selfish. The rights of someone to have a child are less than that of a child to know where they come from. I'm sure it must be devestating to be unable to have children, but do you really want to have a child so much that you would deny that person the chance to find out where they come from.

Many adopted children have an overwhelming urge to find their birth parents, some to the point that it damages their ability to get on with the rest of their life. I don't think someone should bring a child into the world if they aren't willing to meet with them at least once to give them the answers they may need.

If anything I think this legislation overlooks the fact that the child could possibly have half siblings if the donor gave more than once. I think many donors, male in particular, don't fully appreciate what they are doing. This forces them to, and that is a good thing.

Eoghan-psych

I don't think tracing like this should be allowed. Donors should be given an opt-in option whereby they can specifically ask that their records be made available to any resulting children.

Think of the abuses this can lead to - a scary thought.

bonkey

Eoghan-psych wrote:

Think of the abuses this can lead to - a scary thought.

I'm trying, but I'm not seeing any.

<edit>
Maybe its the comment in the same way as those who are adopted which is blinding me. I don't see or hear of adopted kids getting up to gross abuse of the system on these grounds....so maybe thats colouring my judgement.
</edit>

jc

doctor evil

I don`t think they should remove anonymity, it will reduce the number of people donating eggs/sperm. I have considered in the future(long way off) donating eggs to help couples have children but I wouldn`t do it if I end up with someone knocking on my door.

If you think about it the donated sperm/eggs play a small role(aside from the biological role) they merely allow the couple to have a child. It is the couple the parents that raise and show love to the child and bring it up and teach she/he responsibility etc. The donated sperm/eggs provide DNA to make the child but its the parents that nurture it and bring it up to be an adult.

pretty-in-pink

I think the option is good, but some people may disagree on the basis of the "nature vrs nurture" argument. I personnaly would be curious about what the kid looked like, behaved like etc if I donated. At any rate having the right to do it doesnt people will pursue it.And learning bout your actual blood relatives could prevent accidental incest. Imagine going to your kids wedding, to discover that the bride/groom is the result of a donation you made? Having this option means reduced potential in-breeding and so makes it possible to avoid the old royal blue-blood thing. (Marrying cousins etc. )

I'd imagine marrying a half brother/sister would be worse. Or if you married the other donor and then you meet your kids partner, and discover both of you donated sperm/eggs to create the person your kid is with......explain that to them

It just makes it cleaner and safer. It is proven that people have an attraction/are drawn to blood relatives,
If they dont know eachother, then this is read as sexual attraction and it gets messy.....Like Floyd and Heather in fair city.....

dearg_doom

I think it's about time!

I know a few adopted people and it used to be a major head-wrecker for them in the old days(ie not too long ago) when they'd be at a medical/hospital, and the first question is about your parents health!

I don't think in situ's like this the rights of the donor should ever supercede the rights of the child.

MorningStar

naughty_girl wrote:

I'd imagine marrying a half brother/sister would be worse. Or if you married the other donor and then you meet your kids partner, and discover both of you donated sperm/eggs to create the person your kid is with......explain that to them

It just makes it cleaner and safer. It is proven that people have an attraction/are drawn to blood relatives,
If they dont know eachother, then this is read as sexual attraction and it gets messy.....Like Floyd and Heather in fair city.....

Good points made!

I have been wondering about how they aviod genetic family meeting after donation. Forget the marrying thing, one night stands allow it to happen. In theory adoption can also allow it happen. As far as I can tell adoption has the possible problem too. With the increase in these methods of reproductuion it has to be an increasing risk. Is the medical field doing anything to avoid it?

The strange think about this law is it is more restrictive than natural fatherhood as far as I can guess. Thier is a stupid film called "code 46" with Tim Robbins about it out quite recently.

Not fully up on all the regulation on this but anonomus donation I think should be stopped. It's one thing to assist a medical condition but another to produce a gentic offspring of a person for another person. There are enough children in the world that need care so we don't need to go around getting donations and spending enough money to save enitire villages just so somebody can have a child of their "own".

By the by cousins marrying and having children is not a genetic problem or even a social problem in many countries. The genetic problem in royal families were not introduced by inbreeding they were just present in the families.

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/041001.html

pretty-in-pink

Yup, no fresh new bloodline meant they ended up with all the genetic filures, which were compounded as the in breeding went on and on. Also they got all those nasty STDs as the men were getting up on anything with a pulse, and so STDs were rampant, and as they were all related and sleeping together they all got th diseases and passed them on. Its aslo wh yinfant mortality ad stillbirths were so high back then too.

They probably had a logical reason for inbreeding though, like keeping out ruffians and not losing land, gaining titles, keeping the old family going as the heads of power. They didnt want to look back and say "well two hundred years ag omy family ruled Britain, but now its HRH Johnny Humpville"

simu

I don't see the harm in this - it's not like donors suddenly have some financial responsibility towards their genetic offspring.

The main factor putting women off donating eggs is that you have to take hormones and the ensuing discomfort. Also, in Britain and Ireland, women are not paid for eggs whereas in the US, you could get thousands if you're smart, fit and beautiful! That's got to be an incentive!

MorningStar

naughty_girl wrote:

Yup, no fresh new bloodline meant they ended up with all the genetic filures, which were compounded as the in breeding went on and on. Also they got all those nasty STDs as the men were getting up on anything with a pulse, and so STDs were rampant, and as they were all related and sleeping together they all got th diseases and passed them on. Its aslo wh yinfant mortality ad stillbirths were so high back then too.

They probably had a logical reason for inbreeding though, like keeping out ruffians and not losing land, gaining titles, keeping the old family going as the heads of power. They didnt want to look back and say "well two hundred years ag omy family ruled Britain, but now its HRH Johnny Humpville"

I posted a link showing that part of the popular belief about inbreeding and royal lines isn't true. What are you basing your statements about inbreeding on? I am actually curious as I found it hard to believe that it wasn't true but I was assured by a friend of mine that inbreeding in humans takes a real long time to notice. Which does make me now want to retract my fear about half brothers and sister now because it seems it isn't a actual problem. Still not sure about details

Try not to make wild sexist comments. You wouldn't do it about a race or woman and get away with it, respect is a 2 way street.

CathyMoran

Having dated someone who is adopted and having done a genetics degree in the distant past I do think that at the very least the child should have the right to know the medical details of the donor and enough information to avoid mating with a close relative. There should be no financial attachment implied - however it still seems difficult to avoid the one night stand situation without the child knowing a good deal about the donor.

The_Conductor

MorningStar wrote:

I posted a link showing that part of the popular belief about inbreeding and royal lines isn't true. What are you basing your statements about inbreeding on? I am actually curious as I found it hard to believe that it wasn't true but I was assured by a friend of mine that inbreeding in humans takes a real long time to notice. Which does make me now want to retract my fear about half brothers and sister now because it seems it isn't a actual problem. Still not sure about details

Try not to make wild sexist comments. You wouldn't do it about a race or woman and get away with it, respect is a 2 way street.

There is phenomenon known as Genetic Sexual Attraction (or GSA) which both adopted people and natural parents are warned about during counselling at present. Apparently you are naturally attracted to those of a close genetic composition to yourself. Society has developed strong taboos around incest as a manner of taming this formerly insidious problem.

With respect to the original question- I don't think there would be an issue if the likes of a "Contact Preference Register" such as recently taken over by the Adoption Authority were rolled out to include any children conceived as a result of egg/sperm donations. This would allow both the child and the natural parent to register a level of contact that they are happy with at a particular point in time, and would be open to review every 4-5 years (as their circumstances change and they move on in their lives).

The issue from my perspective is a measure of a person's inherrent *right* to have a child, versus that child's *right* to know where it comes from. Its a very difficult balancing act- and unlike adoption, the pretence that its all "in the best interests of the child" for the most part does not even enter the equation. Personally, I do not think that anyone, regardless of who they are, has an automatic right to be a parent. Their progeny, or lack thereof, while often a social choice these days, is not a measure of them as a person, their success or their stature in community. This was not always the case in the past- thankfully times are a'changin'.

While children conceived in this manner may not have a lot of the self-doubts and relationship problems associated with some adopted people- i.e. they may have less inherent psychie associated with a need to know (themselves as much as anything else), they do nonetheless have basic wants and needs that they deserve be met.

Children are not commodities to be traded at the whim of people. Anne McIlhenny has an interesting article out this week which might make interesting reading......