More From the World Of Sperm Banking

I’ve written before–even post-sojourn (which is how I now think of my long break from blogging) about the problems with unregulated and for-profit sperm banking.   It does not seem to me that this is a case that still needs to be proved.  Surely it is clear that some sort of intervention is needed?   (This doesn’t, of course, say what form of intervention and there are many devils waiting in those details.)

But need it or not, here’s yet another story that offers a glimpse of some of the complex issues that lie beneath current practices and any changes.  It appears there is a sperm bank–Xytex–that (wittingly or not–and we’ll come back to this momentarily) provided sperm to a number of women that was not as advertised.   It came from James Christian Aggeles.   Aggeles lied to Xytex about his educational background and, to my mind far more importantly, his mental health history.   While Aggeles had been diagnosed with schizophrenia and narcisissitic personality disorder, he omitted this information.   His sperm was used to create over 30 children, including 7 in Canada.

Now clearly Aggeles did plenty that was wrong.  But did Xytex?  And if so, what?   If you read carefully, you can see that the allegation is that Xytex essentially encouraged Aggeles to falsify educational credentials, telling him that sperm from those highly educated sells better.  (While at this point I have no idea if this actually happened, I cannot think of any legitimate reason for a sperm bank to tell a prospective provider this.  It can only encourage resume padding (or worse).) More concretely, it’s alleged that Xytex “created” his IQ.   Again, at this stage there’s no way to know if this happened, but if it did, it’s surely indefensible.

And then there is this:   What I take from the story is that Xytex (quite carelessly) disclosed Aggeles’ identity to some of the women who had received his sperm.   Those women “went to work” (that’s taken from the news story) and unearthed information about Aggeles.   Of course, if they could do it, so could Xytex.  But one assumes that Xytex didn’t.  (If Xytex did and then went with information it knew was false, that’s even worse.)   Should they have?

I don’t find this a hard question, personally.  If you are going to allow anonymous sperm donation, then people must rely on the sperm banks themselves to do screening.    (If providers are known then you might ask the recipients to do their own Google searches.)   Screening should be more than just asking questions and writing down whatever the provider says.  While some information would be difficult to check, some is pretty easy.   I think, for instance, if a person says “I have a degree from this institution” you can check and see if the institution has a record of it.   It’s not something the institution keeps confidential.   And if some information doesn’t check out, surely there is some reason to worry–and maybe the bank doesn’t take that provider?  Or maybe they put a warning on it that the bank knows the information is unreliable.  (I have to say, I cannot imagine who would use sperm from such a provider, so I think most likely the provider is rejected.)

If you don’t impose some sort of obligation to at least make best efforts to confirm information, then at least some sperm banks will tend to be overly trusting.  After all, it isn’t in the bank’s interest to reject a potential donor who has impressive credentials, because they can sell that sperm most easily.  Which leads us back to the for-profit thing.   A sperm bank that is in it for the profit–and purely for the profit–may have an incentive to overlook inconsistencies on order to have more product available.

Now I’m not saying this is true of all sperm banks–clearly it is not.  And I’m not even saying it is true of most.   But it is, I’m afraid, true of some.   And those–even if they are few–can do a lot of harm.  So it seems to me realigning incentives is sensible.  Imposing liability here–for not checking what they could have checked, say–would change the equation.   It would make it worth your while to screen, even as it is the right thing to do.

It’s only fair to note that another consequence of this would be to raise the cost of sperm–because checking will cost something and that cost will be passed along.   But reforms often cost money.  I think, in this instance, the trade-off is worth it.  (There is something else to think about a little, though–would the higher cost drive more people to the Craig’s-list model, which is even less well-regulated?   It might.  And that’s more food for thought.)

 

 

Advertisements

7 responses to “More From the World Of Sperm Banking

  1. From another article:
    “Collins says she chose Xytex because of its large, reportedly high-quality donor selection and claims of rigorous screening. “You can rest easy knowing right up front (that) every Xytex donor ranks in the top 1% of the population in health and wellness,” Xytex’s website boasts.”

    That claim is still on their website:
    https://www.xytex.com/sperm-bank/index.cfm

    This case also highlights the inconsistency that Canadian donors can’t be paid, but Canadian recipients can import sperm from the USA, where donating sperm can be quite lucrative.

    • I noticed that. And I also noticed that while their press section has a link to an article about one case that was dismissed, it has no references to ongoing cases. I think this is misleading, to say the least.

      And though I didn’t comment on the cross-border aspect, it is also interesting. The comparison between the two markets–paid and unpaid–is worth thinking about.

      One thing I find myself thinking: Women who want sperm in order to have a child will get it. There are too many ways of doing so to imagine you can really shut this down. So you could think about asking whether there should be a simple, safe and legally secure way and then figure out how to create that. Requiring those who would facilitate—and especially those who would make money facilitating–to meet standards of honesty and reliability would be one part of that.

  2. What if people just found their own person to have a kid with Me nobody got money for it? You could just pay the lab fees to and independent lab

    Q

    • Many people do this in one way or another. People find a willing (and often a well-known) sperm provider and do insemination on their own. Or they might do it through a willing doctor. Or they can use a lab if they want to freeze sperm or ship it or whatever. Lots of ways to go about this.

      One important question is how the law looks at this. In some states, if a woman is unmarried the man who provides sperm is a legal father, even if there is AI. This may push some wary people towards using an anonymous donor. IN other states the donor will be a legal father unless the insemination is done by a doctor. In still others, it depends if there is an agreement. The variation–both in what people do and in how the law treats what people do–makes it hard to say a lot more, except to say that it is often (but perhaps not always) an option.

  3. This already happens to an extent when people go on Craig’s List and conceiving a kid together without a lab. I’m not sure why if they are finding one another why bother going to a lab and spending money on that?

  4. true but they have no legal right to information about the donor/parent’s medical conditions. (not commenting on whats ethical or not, only on the legal right). Do ART consumers have more rights than persons who reproduce on their own?
    So happy to see the blog is up and running again!

  5. I want to draw attention to you saying that the man who fathered these children did plenty wrong. I think he did plenty wrong as well; he has thirty children that he’s not raising or supporting or integrating into his family socially or emotionally. Do I think it’s bad that he has thirty kids? No. Do I think his kids are mistakes or shouldn’t be born? Do I think his kids are flawed or defective? No no no no. Everyone born deserves to be here and nobody is flawed because of who their parents are. But parents are supposed to be there to del with whatever problems their kids face from inheriting faulty genes. Nobody else will do but them from the kids standpoint in terms of culpability. The sperm bank? What would you have them do play the roll of adopted father and pay medical bills their absent father should be paying? Sperm and people are not products. He made a choice to have kids with women that did not know he had a history of mental health issues. They did not ask him themselves and they knew that is not something the clinic can test for reliably cost effectively.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s