It's expected to be announced next week that Men who father children through sperm donations are to lose their annonymity.

The basis of this is that the child has the right to know their genetic history. This would also bring the Uk into line with a few other European countries.

Apparently donors prefer to remain nameless for various reasons.

It's thought by some that any changes regarding confidentiality could result in a shortage of donors.

What are your opinions on this?

I've created a poll.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,1125342,00.html

I think they should keep it. Isn't their any checks into their genetic history anyway. If there isn't there should be. I think that the whole point of AID (Artificial Insemination by a Donor) is that to all intents and purposes, the father of the child is the one from the couple have the procedure.

Yes, i believe all donors, male and female, are genetically tested for chromosomal abnormalities. This tests for an abnormality in the persons normal chromosome complement, before they can donate.
The thing being is even if they are normal sometimes a fault occurs in the division of the cells after insemination, causing an abnormality in the baby.
Other illnesses occur in people and they are considered to be genetic as quiet often family related, e.g. heart disease, but these are not shown up in a chromosome testing. So you can have a bad family history, but be normal chromosomally, as i am. To test for thing like huntingtons(think), breast cancer genes, you have to moleculary test. Each molecular test has to be done individually for one thing at a time.

Here is a site which i found http://www.accessexcellence.org/AE/AEPC/NIH/
with info on it.

Definately not.

Sorry you replied while i went off and thought about it a but more.
I thought they were, all women are.

Sorry you meant that there information should not be given.
I am not sure. It is a bit like being adopted it is a child, as a woman know you have a child but the man may not know there is a child, but they can still come and find you at 18, or before.
Any time you have unprotected sex you could be creating someone that may want to come and find you later.
But yes i do agree that it will make the number of donations go down.

I wasn't very clear was I? I meant that identities should be witheld, regardless. It's a tough call but donors should have their privacy respected. It's just something that the child will have to live with.

It'll mean nobody will want to be sperm donors...

Imagine five years down the line, you get a call from the Child Support Agency wanting some money - after all, you are the child's father.

The child's parents are the people who bring it up, who teach it right from wrong, who show it love, who care for and provide for it. The donors do not do that.

No they shouldn't be named they should remain anonymous because if the anonymity is lost, the amount of donations will rapidly decline, which can only be a bad thing for infertile couples who rely on such donations.

Children have a right to know who their parents are in my view, if they are to be well-balanced

Men who want to be anonymous will just have to stop donating

Answer this question for me if you can, or at least think about it...

Why would a man want to donate sperm to make a baby but not want that baby to know anything about him when it is old enough?

What is his motivation?

Does he just want the few quid for the donation so that he can have a few pints? Is that a good enough reason to create another human being?

Does he want to feel the pleasure of knowing he has kids out there somewhere, that his genetic inheritence will go on, but without the "hassle" of actually ever having to in any way acknowledge or meet this kid?

(There are no maintenance implications on NHS sperm donors, so nobody can come back and claim money in the future. That is a fact I am sharing with you.)

Do we think that the existing situation is satisfactory?

Have any of you read the article that appeared in a Sunday newspaper about a year ago concerning the children of anonymous donors and how empty they felt just not knowing about the person who gave them half their genetic material - and it isnt as if they asked to be born is it?

I think that donors should be acknowledged. They dont have to be part of the family, if that is not appropriate, but the child should know that this person is half of their genetic pool. And sooner rather than later. Just "knowing" is often enough.

And if a bloke who is part of an infertile relationship cannot hack his child having an acknowledged other man as its biological father, then I would suggest that sperm donation is not right for them.

It will be a shame if donation levels fall but it would be worse if we went on creating children who feel empty and miserable and even on occasion I read, suicidal, because they had this neverending question going on in their head - who is my biological father that made me half what I am today.

Nobody is owed a child, there is no rule that says you can have a child by whatever means you like and everyone must help you to get one. People who want to have children, their own or anybody else's, should be sure that they have the child's interests at heart, even before conception.

They should be sure that the child that will be born will not start off his or her life already at a disadvantage

Surely?

Incidentally, if you get pregnant by accident on a one night stand and you never see the bloke again, at least you can say "Well he was called Andy and he was a student in Leeds and he was tall and gorgeous and liked ice hockey" or whatever. It is better than "I dont know, it could be any man you ever meet any time any where, he is anonymous to us all."

Originally posted by Belle
Answer this question for me if you can, or at least think about it...

Why would a man want to donate sperm to make a baby but not want that baby to know anything about him when it is old enough?

What is his motivation?


I'm not qualified to answer most of your questions plus I don't have a view on the rights or wrongs of maintaining anonymity. I can, however, answer these particluar ones. Altruism. Believe it or not but there are people who do things out of sheer goodwill with no expectations of reward. Why do people give blood or give to charities? There may be many reasons but chief among those is altruism.

I agree about the altruism

But the donors I have met are happy to extend their altruism to being acknowledged by their potential children

It is the refusal to do this knowing how important it is, that makes me ask the question.

It would be a shame if donors were turned off by the thought of being acknowledged, that would be altruistic up to a point but no further, which is a shame.

Originally posted by Belle

It would be a shame if donors were turned off by the thought of being acknowledged, that would be altruistic up to a point but no further, which is a shame.

IMO it's not the acknowledgement that puts people off, it's the idea of lawyers. Imagine the fun they'd have tracking down donors and stiffing them for maintenance.

The scenario: impoverished actor desperate for money donates sperm. Many years later he's made it and is v rich when suddenley up pops the result of that donation. Hi dad, can I have a couple of mill? No, OK, where's Max Clifford? Is that The Sun? How about this for a headline:

What a w**k**
Multi-talented, multi-millionaire Joe Bloggs splashed out once but won't now.

It's a small point, but what's the current situation regarding anonymity of babies? Do people who are donating get told when and to whom they're being supplied?

Max - NHS donors, even if acknowledged as per suggestions that encouraged Licksss to ask the question, are not held liable for financial redress. I thought I had said that.

Private donors of course could be, even if they sign a document together, it isnt legally binding. But if the potential parents agreed not to go down the financial road, and never got involved with benefits then that agreement between them, without state interference would stand.

Moonolt - currently NHS donors remain anonymous, even, so far as I know, even if they dont want to be anonymous.

The former I am sure of, the latter I am not

My knowledge comes from the private end of the market

I do know that NHS donors are never told whether they made a baby or not

Actually there is another interesting point here. NHS donors' sperm is only allowed to create a set number of babies - I dont remember the figure, perhaps it is about 3.

Whereas men who reply privately to internet requests etc can have as many as they like. I know a man who has fathered 12 babies as a donor, 2 or 3 to the same couple(s). As far as I know he didnt get any money for his donations.

This situation (the number of babies conceived) would not be allowed on the NHS which I have some sympathy with. I am a bit worried about it although couldn't quite say why.

Perhaps the NHS (or whoever) is trying to address some of these anomalies with their suggestions?

I believe the law should be changed but it shouldn't affect those prior the law coming into effect. The law needs to be very tight otherwise it going to open too many can of worms.

Imagine that the donator wanted to get in touch of his son/daughter and it turns out that the daughter/son doesn't know and the (step)dad and mother doesn't want them to know ever. Is he allowed to contest it in courts and have those rights too?

Imagine, the mother gave birth and died, but the child lived. The (step)father no longer wanted the child. Does the donator have to pick up the pieces? or what happens if both parents died in a car crash, who is the next of kin?

I would have to agree with you there John

What is in the past is in the past

But changes should be made for the future

Acknowledgement (without financial repercussions of course) or else you cant donate

But past donors should be allowed to stay a secret

In fact I think I am right in saying that records dont exist in any case to opened up, even if people thought otherwise

I dont think the hospitals have ever made a link on paper between a donor and what happened to his sperm and whether it got used and if a pregnancy arose and if so who was born or when. I dont think they ever did all that.

So existing donors should be safe

What about letting the donor know who his child is?

Two out of three women admit that rather than the bottled stuff, they prefer draught.

I have to say that i have consided donating eggs, but haven't yet. I can i am the right age, already have a child, and my genetics are fine, but will not do so if anonimity is taken away.

I don't want anymore kids myself, if i did i would have them, but if i could help someone that really does then i would. But while this issue is going on i will not even think about it.

I don't want to know who they would be, they wouldn't be my kids. If i wanted more kids i would have them myself. There mum and dad would be whoever they were implanted into as most egg donatoins are fertilized by the man that is the partner of the person thsey are implanted in.

It is the same as organ donation, it is not yours anymore, why do you need to know what is happening to it if you choose to give it away.

If you give Blood, you don't get a call a day later telling you where it has gone to?

They should just leave things as they are :mad:

The next thing you will know is the CSA will be sending letters out to men telling them that they owe money for 1000 kids:loopy:

These chaps are worth every penny we spend on them. This from Ananova:

Fertility expert warns of sperm donor fall over anonymity plans (http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_857908.html?menu=)

Why didn't they just ask Sheffield Forum?

Too late.

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

`Health minister Melanie Johnson-they would have no financial or legal responsibility, and would not be forced to meet their donor child`

No body seems to have considered this requisite yet...



Mr Busdriver-If you give Blood, you don't get a call a day later telling you where it has gone to?

They should just leave things as they are

The next thing you will know is the CSA will be sending letters out to men telling them that they owe money for 1000 kids

Dont be ridiculous... This issue is on a grander scale flower...



Sam Miguel-Two out of three women admit that rather than the bottled stuff, they prefer draught.

I will have mine hand pulled please...


Johm-Imagine, the mother gave birth and died, but the child lived. The (step)father no longer wanted the child. Does the donator have to pick up the pieces? or what happens if both parents died in a car crash, who is the next of kin?

Unfair point based on statistics... sorry to sound cold...You cannot base such life decisions on this/or that might happen...



max-IMO it's not the acknowledgement that puts people off, it's the idea of lawyers. Imagine the fun they'd have tracking down donors and stiffing them for maintenance.

The scenario: impoverished actor desperate for money donates sperm. Many years later he's made it and is v rich when suddenley up pops the result of that donation. Hi dad, can I have a couple of mill? No, OK, where's Max Clifford? Is that The Sun?

Valid point...


And other pints made already...

But you must consider life of the child first and foremost here.

Donations may go down unfortunately, and already a shortage acknowledged. But donatijg in the first place is a decision that would, I hope take much thought and deliberation anyway.

Cannot help thinking about the childs right to know if they want to search for answers.

I have considered the options of adopting children from lesser developed countries. If that ever were to happen, I would encourage the child to ask the same questions if they wanted to.

So I am in favour based on these reasons and others...


Furthermore, my plan is to donate privately, so there is no limit to my donations. And in about twenty years after all donors have long dropped out, I will contact all of my children as I will be the sole donor remaining. Build an army out of them and take over the world!!!!

:banana: :twisted: :banana:

I think I'm in favour of the donors keeping their anonymity. Mostly this is done to help out people who cannot have children and there are many. I do feel that it will lead to a shortfall in the donors.

Loss of anonimity comes into effect soon, and numbers of donors have already dropped. Soon there will be no IVF sytem(for those requiring donors) in this country, through lack of donors. How long before they change there minds?

Now this has actually become law it will be interesting to see if the number of donors takes a nosedive!!

Dispite the authorities stating there is no financial entitlements if they do find who the donor is - the new law is purely so they can trace their genepool.

Applies to egg donors too!!