In March, Newsweek featured surrogacy on its cover. (And i wrote about that here.) Now, not quite so prominently featured, an article about sperm donors. More grist for the mill.
The new Newsweek story is interesting for a couple of reasons. First, the story highlights the unregulated nature of the reproductive technology industry. If you talk to anyone from Western Europe or Canada they find the lack of regulation of ART here astonishing. It’s magnified, perhaps, because the law itself varies so state to state. But in any event, the article raises critical questions of who should be doing regulating and to what ends.
Beyond that, I am struck yet again by the imprecise way in which people deploy language, particularly the language of parenthood, and the degree to which that imprecision muddies discussion. For example, Tim Guillicksen is a sperm donor. He is looking for his “kids.” Now the quotes are in the Newsweek article. What do they mean? He’s looking, I presume, for the children who were created using the sperm he donated.
The hook of the story is that Guillicksen finds one such child, McKay. McKay, who is ten, is the child of a single woman who was inseminated using Guillicksen’s sperm. (Apparently Guillicksen believes McKay is but one of 35 such children produced from his sperm. That seems like an argument in favor of some sort of regulation.) McKay’s response, on meeting Guillicksen, is “I’ve always wanted a dad.” The implication, I think, is that Guillicksen is his dad.
Now I do not presume to tell a child, or the child and his mother, what they should call Guillicksen. But I resist strongly the notion that the law should accord Guillicksen recognition as a father. Granted, he has a genetic link to the child. This may make him an important person for the child do know about, or to actually know. It may make him an important source of family medical history. It may make him a person a child would like to meet. It may even give him a unique place in a child’s life. But all of that can be accomplished without giving him the legal status of father.
Indeed, I think it is more likely that many of these things will happen if it is clear that he DOES NOT have the status of father. This may seem counter-intuitive at first. You can read back at places where I have spun this argument out before. To recognize someone as a legal parent is to give them a great deal of power. Power over the child and power over any other legal parents. If a sperm donor is a father, then the only way for single women or lesbian couples to protect themselves from that threat is to use anonymous donors. If a child is born using an anonymous donor, then the child will not know who the donor is, will not be able to meet the donor, will not have access to the donor’s medical history, etc. By contrast, if the donor is clearly a donor and has no further legal recognition, then the mother or mothers may well choose to use a known donor, or at least a donor who can be contacted at some point in the future.
As I say, I’ve written about this at some length on this blog already. But the Newsweek story brings it to mind again. It’s likely a good thing that more attention get paid to all these issues around parentage. But I do hope they are given careful thought.
4 responses so far ↓
M.Maheswari // June 4, 2008 at 9:23 pm |
I strongly oppose any breech of confidentiality and a client’s privacy should never be compromised under any circumstances. The same holds true for sperm donors involved in this case. Basically this problem is two fold involving both the recipient and the donor. The recipient may feel that his child’s affection may decrease on gaining knowledge of his biological father. At the same time, the donor may fear a possibility of having to provide child support for his biological child if his identity is brought to light.
Hence to avoid such complications a common international regulation would prove effective in minimizing the risks of exploitation.
M.Maheswari.RN
http://www.proactivefamilysolutions.com
Nelly // June 7, 2008 at 5:02 am |
With the rapid growth of dna genealogy databases “genetic privacy” will soon be a thing of the past. We better start to prepare ourselves for this day, and accept that it is not a private matter to bring a child into this world. Besides, my instinct tells me that things which have to be kept secret at all cost, isn`t anything good.
julieshapiro // June 7, 2008 at 12:48 pm |
I think there might be two separate issues here. One has to do with assurances that were made in the past. Men were promised anonymity as sperm donors and they were promised that they would not be fathers. Some undoubtedly relied on their promises. Now modern DNA technology makes it possible to back track and find the donors, even where the sperm banks involved honor their commitment to anonymity. So one thing to consider is what we owe the men who relied on various representations. I’m inclined to believe in keeping one’s promises.
But there is an independent and more important question about what we should do heading into the future. Is it right to provide this assurance? Increasingly I think that we might want to articulate some specific expectations of sperm donors (and egg donors, too). NOT that they will be parents. But perhaps that they will continue to provide subsequent medical information. To decide this we’d need to think about whether it is sufficiently important that children have access to information about genetic lineage.
I imagine that if we did impose some articulated set of obligations on sperm and egg donors fewer people would agree to be donors. That’s a trade-off to consider. But in any event, it would (for me) have to be clear what the deal was at the outset. That’s why is see this as two separate questions–one looking back on folks who have already donated, the other a policy question for the future.
Nelly // November 13, 2008 at 2:08 pm |
You say: “I’m inclined to believe in keeping one’s promises”
I agree, but the fact is that the donor children never made any promises. Are they bound by our promises? After all, did we adhere to the rules of procreation that our parents made before 1968? so why should they? In my opinion there is something amusing about a “youth revolt generation” like ours, to expect our children to play according to our rules.
Anyways, they don`t have to, and our reaction is going to be just as confused and bewildered as that of our parents when we presented them to the facts of “free sex” 40 yers ago.
Very importantly, you ask about sperm donors: “Is it right to provide this assurance?” People who work with DNA genealogy say: definitely not. It will at most take 10-15 years before the walls of secrecy collapse. Donor siblings are finding each other in the thousands, and through the internet the donor himself. DNA research is rapidly moving towards establishing the exact intersection of any two persons branches in their biological family tree. The remaining details can be filled out through traditional genealogical methods.