I’ve been thinking about the Pratten case (which has been discussed on the blog a bunch to times) and a couple of new studies that have crossed my path. All of these items make one think about how to manage the use of donor gametes. (In general, I prefer to call these third-party gametes, but it’s hard to only use that terminology when the popular press consistently says “donor.”
Anyway, use of third party or donor sperm (or eggs) has been discussed a number of times here. Typically those discussions are spurred by some specific story–like the Pratten case. But sometimes its just as useful to think about a question without a specific case in mind. I’ve been trying to do that. And I find myself wondering (again?) why there isn’t a fairly obvious middle ground that might draw people together.
I know a number of people are concerned that those who are donor conceived do not have access to information about their genetic lineage, which can be important both for health reasons and for some sense if identity. Continue reading
My last post was about a Canadian case I’ve been following from some time–a case in which Olivia Pratten sought access to identifying information about the sperm donor use in her conception. The British Columbia Court of Appeals rejected her claim. There’s further coverage of the case (and fairly critical coverage) here.
As I think about it a bit more, it might be important to distinguish between two slightly different arguments Pratten has offered. First, you could argue that whatever the rights of adopted and donor conceived people are, they must be treated the same. I’ve written elsewhere about the sameness/difference of adopted and donor conceived people. I think it’s complicated. (The post I have linked to was spurred by the lower court opinion in Pratten’s case.)
There are arguments for sameness and there are also arguments for difference. Continue reading
It’s a very busy week for me, isn’t it? For a long time now I’ve been following a case pursued by Oliva Pratten. There’s an important new development in the case.
Pratten was born in 1982. Her mother conceived using sperm from an anonymous donor. As an adult and with the support of her parents, she sued to obtain identifying information about that donor. Though it wasn’t clear she could actually get any information herself given the passage of time, her case had broad implications for donor-conceived people more generally. There’s a new ruling in her case–one that reverses an earlier judgment in Pratten’s favor. (You can read earlier blog posts for background. I should probably do that, too.) Continue reading
Again I digress (and postpone engaging with comments for a little bit) to cover a story from the issue of Time Magazine on newsstands now. You must be a subscriber to read the article on-line, but you can read about it here and here. I read it in the print edition. The story is by Jay Newton-Small and it is worth trying to get a copy of it to read. The snippets you can get access to give you the main point of the story.
Here’s the bottom line: The US has become sperm exporter to the world. Newton-Small attributes US dominance in the field to ”quality control and wide product selection.” I want to think about both of these but I’ll take them in reverse order.
The product selection: Because the US population is diverse, the pool of sperm providers here is diverse. Continue reading
I am digressing from my current topic for a moment because these two stories, both from The Telegraph (UK) happened across my desk (screen?) this morning. One is a story of sperm donation some time ago, the other is quite contemporary.
Then: Bertold Weisner and his wife, Mary Barton, ran a fertility clinic in London starting in the 1940s. Two men conceived at the clinic (Barry Stevens and David Gollancz) made a movie about the clinic. They discovered that Weisner used his own sperm at the clinic with alarming frequency. Indeed, they estimate that Weisner had between 300 and 600 offspring. Continue reading
So as I noted at the end of last week, I have come across a very rich and recent study by the Evan B. Donaldson Institute called “Openness in Adoption: From Secrecy and Stigma to Knowledge and Connections.” It’s particularly timely, given the discussion of what the history of adoption can teach us about anonymity and gamete donors, but it provides answers to some questions I have long wondered about.
The sameness/difference I refer to in the title of this post refers to the relationship of adoption to use of third-party gametes. For me, this is where the conversation started. But of course, adoption (and what we have learned about it) is important in its own right, too.
As I look at the report, I thought the first thing I’d do was to note some of the things that strike me and seem to me as equally pertinent to the third-party gamete questions. Later I can talk about differences. Continue reading
As I’ve been doing some reading I came across this report–issued, as you can see, in March 2012. It’s called “Openess in Adoption: From Secrecy and Stigma to Knowledge and Connections.” It’s published by the Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute.
I’ve had time to skim most of it and I’m satisfied that it is actually worth sitting down to read before I offer any comments. But since we’re heading into Passover and I don’t know quite when I’ll have time for that, I thought I’d just link to the report itself for now. It’s obviously relevant to recent discussions about anonymity and third- party gametes.
I do, however, want to offer one caveat here. While I think that the history of adoption practices is relevant and enlightening, I think there are very important differences between adoption and ART with third-party gametes. Continue reading
A few days back I had a post up about sperm donations in the UK. This story from The Independent seems like something of a follow-up, thought it doesn’t really go off in the same direction. What first caught my attention was the headline, which for the first time that I’ve noticed refers to a “sperm donor boom” in the UK. (Curiously, there’s another contemporaneous UK story, this one from the BBC, that puts a different spin on things.)
The hook for the story in The Independent is that as compensation for donors is rising, so are the number of donors. Of course, rising compensation doesn’t tell the whole story. As the last post on the topic discussed, the number of donors in the UK has been rising for six years while the enhanced compensation just took effect. Still, it does seem likely that the increased compensation will lead to an increase in donors. Continue reading
There’s a major story (front page, big picture) in the Seattle Times today about one woman’s search for her sperm donor. Her name is Vicky Reilly and her search is particularly difficult, in large part because she is 68 and so the donation she is trying to track is from 1942 or 1943.
Reading her story makes me think about how the practices around use of third-party gametes have changed. I’m thinking here particularly about the use of unknown and unknowable sperm providers.
I’ve written a lot here about that topic and I suspect if you read through all the posts (something I have not done) you might find that my own views have evolved. Continue reading
A major report on law reform regarding identification of sperm donors in Australia was released this week. You can either read the press coverage (short and way to simplistic) or the actual report. The report (prepared for the Victoria parliament) is focused on a fairly narrow and transitional issue, but I want to use it as a jumping off point for another conversation.
Victoria law currently provides that all donor conceived people conceived after 1998 have access to identifying information about their donors. This information is made available when the donor conceived person reaches adulthood. That means anyone who provided sperm after 1998 did so knowing that the identifying information would be available. Continue reading