This is really a continuation of yesterday’s discussion. A different version of the story is in today’s New York Times. It makes a couple of different points.
Among other things, it refers to being placed on a waiting list at fertility clinics. This feeds in to a question I had–if there is a sperm shortage, how is the supply they do have allocated? It appears (though it doesn’t outright say) that it is first-come, first-served. There could, of cousre, be other possibilities, but some of these might be terribly problematic. (One could, for example, prefer married couples over unmarried couples or singles. Or you could prefer older couples who might be more harmed by waiting.)
The article also makes it clear that while donors are paid for their time and trouble, you cannot pay them for the actual sperm. This is consistent with UK policy as to surrogacy, I think. I don’t really understand how you define whether the amount paid is too much and therefore implies that you are actually paying for the sperm, but I do get the point. Sperm itself is not a commodity in the UK. (It is in the US.)
What interests me most are the comments of the spokeswoman for the patients’ rights group. Her suggestion is that it isn’t anonymity per se that has caused the shortage. It is the failure of the medical establishment to change the pool from which the recruit donors in light of the indentification requirement. As she says, different men will give now who had given before. I take the implication to be that even as some men will no longer give, other men who might not have given will give under this system. I don’t know if that is true or not, although it would seem that it must be true at least in part. The real question is whether the number of newly available donors could offset the lost donors. And if you don’t go out and look for the new-type donors, they likely will not, which could explain what is happening. Again, her point emphasizes that how men understand their potential relationship to the resulting child is important. That ties back to many of my larger concerns.
2 responses so far ↓
Nelly // November 14, 2008 at 11:41 am |
You say: “I don’t really understand how you define whether the amount paid is too much and therefore implies that you are actually paying for the sperm, but I do get the point”
In Canada it is forbidden to buy human sperm and eggs ( 5 years imprisonment for buying sperm, 10 years for buying eggs). You are allowed to donate, but can only receive payment for documented transport expenses. Maybe you should look into the Canadian situation.
julieshapiro // November 16, 2008 at 10:52 am |
Our near-neighbor Canada does indeed present another interesting set of choices. I’d actually raised it briefly in the post before this, and it’s the subject of the post I am about to write.