Adoptive Parents and the Genetic Link

There’s been ongoing discussion here  (that link is just one example) about the importance of a genetic connection between parent and child.  As I have made clear, I am not persuaded that a person who can claim a genetic link with a child should therefore been recognized as a legal parent.   Hence, I think a man who provides sperm to a woman need not be the father of that child.   Others have strongly disagreed.  We’ve had long discussions about it. 

Arguably, this isn’t simply a matter of opinion.  This is a question where there might be useful evidence to consider and occasional reference has been made to one or another study of some of the questions raised.     I read a paper the other day which makes an interesting contribution here.   It’s from the American Sociological Review, February 2007 and is by Laura Hamilton, Simon Cheng Brian Powell.  (I’ve linked you to the table of contents the article is not on-line.  If anyone wants a copy, you can e-mail me.)  

The authors wanted to examine the importance of biological ties for parental investment.  

What Does It Mean That A Child is “Yours?”: Thinking About ART Mistakes

Here’s a thought-provoking piece from The Guardian, UK.   It ties back to some of my earlier thoughts about ART mistakes. (The most recent string was occasioned by the “wrong embryo” case featured on the Today show not so long ago.)  

As the article notes, while uncertainty about paternity has been around forever, uncertainty about maternity is a new problem.   Time was a woman gave birth and we knew she was the mother.   Now?  She may not be legally recognized as the mother of the child (because in a jurisdiction that enforces surrogacy agreements a woman who gives birth is not necessarily a mother).   And she may be legally recognized, but she may not be genetically related to the child.   In this brave new world, women as well as men may now need to ask ”Is this child mine?”   

This question–is the child mine-is a fascinating one.   To say that this thing or that thing is mine is to claim possession.   Children, of course, are not possessions, nor can they be possessed.   As it is used in this article (and in the Michael Jackson’s Billie Jean) the question is really one about genetic lineage–was my genetic material used to create this child

So Maybe Being A Parent IS All About Sex?

Under the laws of many states (including Washington) and in the Uniform Parentage Act the parental status of some men turns on the precise means by which the crucial sperm entered the mother’s body:  If sperm is introduced via intercourse than the man is a father while if it is introduced any other way, he is not.   I have commented in the past  that this seems a very odd place to draw a line. 

People of differing views might well share this opinion.   If you think genetics is the  crucial determinant of parental status, then the man is a father no matter how the sperm is delivered.  If you think intent is critical, then the man may or may not be a father–engaging in intercourse is no guarantee of intent to parent.   If you tend towards function (as I typically do) then the man may or may not be a father, but it has little to do with the actual delivery of the sperm.   And so on through the tests I’ve discussed.   

Even when I might disagree in substance (as I do with the genetics-is-fatherhood stance) I find it sensible that sex/no sex is not where a line is drawn.  

Father if Married, Married if Male?

I thought I’d discuss a case recently highlighted in Professor Art Leonard’s blog.   To my mind, this case illustrates the peculiarity of having status as a parent turn on the existence of a formal legal relationship between two adults.   I cannot gain access to the full opinion (you need a subscription service) so I’ll go with the facts as Professor Leonard recites them.

KB was born female but began living as a male as a teenager.  He began living with JR, who is female, in 1998, which is the same year that he legally changed his name.   JR was aware that KB had been born female.

After KB changed his name, he and JR obtained a marriage license and were married.   I assume this was in New York and New York does not currently permit (nor did it then permit) two women to marry.  Because KB was still legally a woman (even though he had changed his name), KB and JR’s marriage was likely not permissible.   However, it appears no one paid any attention to this little detail at the time.   (The issues surrounding marital status of transgender people are numerous and really beyond the scope of this blog.)

Four years later, KB and JR decided to have a child together.    

Sperm Donors, Egg Donors or Gamete Donors?

Recently there has been a lot of conversation on the blog about anonymous donors.   Sometimes it’s clear that people have meant to use the term inclusively, to cover both egg donors and sperm donors.   But sometimes it seems to have been more specifically about sperm donors, as when sperm donors were compared with ”deadbeat dads.”  

It seems to me that in some respects whatever concerns there are about anonymous donors should be the same for sperm donors and egg donors.   In essence, they donate the same thing–genetic material necessary to create a child.   To the extent it seems like a problem, in both cases a child might not be able to trace back his or her genetic lineage.     

Despite this similarity, the conversation tended to focus fairly specifically on sperm donors from time to time, while it never migrated specifically to egg donors.

ART Frontiers and Parenthood

Just as I was taking a step back to think more broadly about some of the issues I discuss here, the New York Times began a series on the promise and perils of modern reproductive technology.  There have been two articles so far, both on the front page, one yesterday and now another today.   They’re gripping and sobering, too.  Definitely worth a read. 

Today’s story opens with a harrowing account of the experiences of Thomas and Amanda Stansel.  They used intrauterine insemination (IUI) as well as drugs to stimulate super-ovulation.  This is less hi-tech, less expensive, and presumably more common that IVF.     I’ll just leave it to you to read the story, which recounts what followed from their choice.  

Assisted reproductive technology (ART) unquestionably offers new opportunities to countless people who are unable to reproduce without some sort of assistance.   At the same time it brings with it countless difficult decisions and wrenching stories, legal challenges and regrettably, some bad outcomes.   (I realize we probably won’t all agree on which outcomes are bad outcomes, but I think we probably all ought to recognize that there must be some.)

Restricting Access to ART: One View on Ethics

There’s been a lot of discussion on my blog about donor insemination, and particularly the use of anonymous donors.   I’m ready to take this is a broader direction.  I’ll start with this short post. 

 This morning I came across this document, which provides ethical guidance to ART (that’s assisted reproductive technology)   professionals.    (DI is is one facet of ART.)   It was developed by the ASRM(American Society for Reproductive Medicine).  While it doesn’t address the issue of anonymous donors, it is focused on the use of ART by people who will frequently be using anonymous donors.    

It’s not particularly new (2006) but it is interesting to me the way the discussion is organized.  As the title makes clear, this paper is addressed to the use of ART by lesbian, gay or unmarried people.   The question posed is whether it is permissible to discriminate in the provision of ART–that is, to provide it to (heterosexual) married couples, but not to unmarried couples or single people.  

News from the UK:New Rights for Donor Siblings

There’s much coverage in UK papers of some new provisions of the law governing ART that just took effect.  (I’ve linked to a couple of different accounts and with a little work, you could find many more.)   These provisions make it possible for people conceived using the same donor’s sperm to locate each other.   They are generally referred to here as either half-siblings or donor siblings.  

It’s worth thinking about donor siblings for a moment.   Siblings generally are minor players in the law–they don’t have  a lot of rights vis-a-vis each other.   This makes recognition of donor siblings more strictly a social/cultural concern and less a legal one.  It also makes it a less complicated issue, since identifying a sibling doesn’t raise autonomy issues that identifying a donor might.  

How Often Are There ART Mistakes?

One quick note to add to the whole wrong embryo discussion, one that also ties back to an earlier and more general post about ART mistakes.  This story reports that a single clinic in the New Orleans area mislabeled dozens of frozen embryos creating the potential for many mix-ups like that experienced by Carolyn and Sean Savage.   

Even in the best of all possible worlds, mistakes are bound to happen.  And in our particular world, we really don’t know how frequently they occur.   That’s one of the reasons why all the legal uncertainty I’ve detailed is so important.  While the Savages and the Morells appear to have agreed on an outcome in their case, that won’t always be the case.   Litigation is bound to occur.  This new story convices me that it may well be sooner rather than later.

The Wrong Embryo and the Patchwork Quilt

As more details are reported about the recent wrong embryo case I can see even more issues to discuss.  (I’ve done several recent posts about it and there’s been some interesting discussion there.)  

To recap quickly, Carolyn Savage and her husband Sean had donated their own genetic material to create some embryos in order to use IVF.  After the birth of one child, the remaining embryos were frozen.    Last winter they went back to the clinic to use some of those frozen embryos in the hopes of having another child.    

Carolyn Savage did get pregnant but it turned out that the clinic had mistakenly used embryos of another couple, Paul and Shannon Morell.   Now as it happens, this time it seems it will work out as well as it possibly could–the couples are in contact and the Savages have agreed to turn the baby over to the Morells once it is born.   The key thing, to me, is that the couples have come to an agreement. 

But here’s a thing that leapt out at me in today’s news.