# Not the time to change policy on donor anonymity - Eric Blyth



## Anthony Reid

I would like to thank Eric for producing this article for us.

The full article can be read here :
http://www.fertilityfriends.co.uk/content/view/489/1/

Please feel free to discuss the topic here.


----------



## NatGamble

A very interesting article.  

I entirely agree that repeated changes to the law in this area have a difficult impact on real donor-conceived families, which are often overlooked.

For example, I have advised several families where they have one child donor-conceived child conceived before the lifting of anonymity and are now wanting to conceive a sibling.  

If they use the same donor again, the donor is anonymous for both children.  But if they use a different donor (e.g. if sibling eggs/ sperm are not available), they end up with one child who can find out the identity of their genetic parent and one child who can't.  This is a difficult position for any family to be in, and I hope will not create dischord between siblings in later life.

I for one agree that we shouldn't keep chopping and changing.  In the interests of donor-conceived families and for the sake of clarity and consistency, we need a settled framework of law.

Natalie Gamble
Associate solicitor with Lester Aldridge LLP (and resident FF legal adviser)


----------



## Anthony Reid

Thanks Nat.

Anyone else want to add to this discussion?


----------



## olivia m

It is fascinating that it is ONLY the British Medical Association (as far as I know) who have raised the issue of reverting to anonymous donation, and this seems to be for utilitarian reasons to do with difficulties in recruiting donors, and nothing to do with the well being of children or families. As Eric Blyth rightly says, donor numbers had been going down all over the world for several years prior to the ending of anonymity in 2005.  If most UK fertility specialists had not chosen to ignore the inevitable in the long consultation period leading up to the change in the law (because they thought the government would never dare to do it) and instead addressed the need to recruit a different sort of sperm donor head on, there would never have been a sperm shortage.  In order to recruit more egg donors - and there has always been a shortage of them - we need a sustained government backed and funded advertising campaign.  The issue seems to be much more to do with lack of awareness of the need than anything to do with money or being identifiable.  Women (very special women) are usually more than willing to help another woman if they know how they can do it.
As far as I know, no patient support organisation will back returning to anonymous donation.  Although we all regret shortages of donors, we all acknowledge that ending anonymity and openness are right for children and families.
Olivia


----------



## brownowl23

I think that more women and men would donate to help people if they knew they could do it without having a child turn up on thier door step 18 years later. Perhaps if donors had the choice of being anonymous or not then this would be a better way of going forward. 

My donor was anonymous, she did it because she wanted to and my clinic actually give us a 5 page document on the donor inclusing medical history family details (siblings etc) and the ususal hair, eye and skin tone colours. 
The donors say why they are donating and leave a message for the recipient. They include a photo as a young child if they wish.

My boys will be brought up knowing that they have a donor mummy, and will be able to read the journal that we wrote when we were out in South Africa having our treatment and see the album of photos and momento's too. 
They will be told when they are old enough to understand that thier donor mummy wanted to just give her eggs away but wanted to remain a secret person. 

I am hoping that as they will grow up knowing how special this person was to us and being able to read the journal and the donor profile whenever they want, then they will be satisfied with the information and knowledge they have of her and will respect her wish to remain anonymous. Although in this day and age and I have no doubt in years to come tracing a donor even thouh they were originally anonymous may be very easy. 

I think it really does depend on how parents handle the subject of the donor as to whether there is a desperation from the child to know who their donor was.

Chris


----------



## bottleofwater

I strongly believe that donors should be paid, I am not talking vast amounts of money but their time and effort should be taken into consideration.  Being altruistic is amazing and I think we can't expect lots of women to be totally altruistic and perhaps lose time off work, pay for travel expenses and any other expense incurred by the act of their kindness.  I am not talking about a small per diem either, but an amount that will make them feel appreciated.  This seems never to have been allowed in this country for fear of it attracting those that are desperate for cash.  But I am sure an interview and concelling session would be able to prevent donations like that happening. Both a top gyno and a fertilty specialist I see, neither recommends I wait for a donor in this country.  I was surprised as I thought they would have perhaps ethical issues being as they work in this country, but they know that the services are excellent abroad and counter the paucity of donors here.


----------



## olivia m

I agree with Chris that the way parents handle information about their children's origins - their confidence and comfort with using a donor - will have a huge impact on how our children feel about themselves and their donor...but we still cannot know exactly what they will think and feel as they mature and become independent thinkers. Being able to CHOOSE to know your donor is something the vast majority of donor conceived adults say is their right, even if their personal choice is not to exercise this.
Gynaecologists and fertility doctors are not the right specialists to pronounce on what is good for children and families.  They are great at the science of making babies and we are all grateful to them for that, but they have no expertise in the well-being of families.  The medical and technical services abroad mostly ARE excellent, no-one quarrels with that...the difficulty is with the anonymity of donors and the paucity of donor information available in most countries.  If UK fertility doctors would put some of their energy (and money) into recruiting egg donors in this country, then couples and individuals would not have such difficult choices when it comes to donor conception.
Olivia


----------



## bottleofwater

THe lack of donors will not go away due to advertising, the main problem is compensation for their time and genoristy.  It takes millions and millions of pounds to create good effective adverts, wouldn't that be ironic if the money was spent on that and not compensating donors.  I understand that Gynos and fertility experts don't deal with the pyschological issues with the child rearing.  But they are human enough to see what women have to face with trying to get donors in this country and hence there soloutions are based on many years of experience.


----------



## brownowl23

bottle of water I agree that donors need to be compensated. My donor was paid for her time and effort.
I know paying donors is seen as contraversial here, as they dont was people doing it just for the money, but why not? 
What is the problem with paying donors? After all its a big thing for an egg donor to go through with all the injections and scans and the EC. 

Chris


----------



## bottleofwater

Hi Chris

I think the fear in this country is that it will attract those so desperate for cash that they don't know what their doing.  But we all know that it is not a thing to go lightly into and other countries have shown quite a high level of university students donate and have the intellegence to understand the risks and procedures.  I read I think on here about a donor in this country that had to struggle to find car parking spaces everytime she had a hospital appointment and then had to pay high meter charges.  She could get the money back but would have had to apply with receipts. So another little bit of her time and effort, I think she didn't bother in the end.  So rather than feel appreciated donors are not given anything just in case they are doing it for the wrong reasons. But isn't it wrong that they should have to make all this effort just from the goodness of their heart.


----------



## olivia m

I wonder how you know, BoW, that lack of payment is the main issue for potential egg donors?  And advertising doesn't have to cost millions.  A recent local and low level advertising campaign conducted by the clinic in Aberdeen in co-operation with local Press, has brought forward an impressive number of potential sperm and egg donors.  If this was repeated throughout the country then it could make a real difference to donor numbers. 
The reason we pay compensation for lost earnings (up to an agreed level) and expenses only for all donors is that the UK government has taken a decision that it is unethical to trade commercially in the means of creating human life.  Blood donors are not paid, organ donors are not paid so it is both logical and particularly morally ethical not to pay gamete donors either.  I have heard some egg donors say that they would feel demeaned if money had been offered for their eggs.  They felt that giving eggs was the most valuable and wonderful gift they would ever be able to make to anyone  and knowing that they had been able to contribute to making a family for someone else was all the thanks they needed...although it helps if a clinic really nurtures and values donors as they go through the process...and this could include not allowing them to struggle with car parking.
Olivia


----------



## Anthony Reid

My immediate thought as to why payment for donors would be the answer, is because of the wide commercial availability of eggs in the USA.

But then there are cultural differences between the British and the Americans which might be the reason that it might not be accepted over here.

I guess we need more studies on this - with data taken from the general public, as opposed to those suffering infertility and/or donors.


----------



## bottleofwater

oliva

The shortage and declining number donors as the article says is happening only in countries where there is no financial recompense.  So I think the statistics answer the question.

You mentioned down below that we need a sustained Government backed advertising campaign, this would cost millions, just for them to set up meetings to get the message across, employ the advertising agency. Buy the advertising space and sustain it. That is great that Aberdeen had an impressive number of donors come forward, I don't feel though that this will ever be the long term soloution, as there are huge numbers of women that need donors and I can't imagine that there are enough donors that will except nothing for their trouble. Where one donor you spoke to felt they would be demeaned by money as I mentioned this other donor felt let down by the lack of support, of course they would pay for the meter, but she would have to get proof, I don't know how you can do that with a meter anyhow.  It is not so logical that if organ donors (whom most are dead at the point of donation) are not paid than neither should egg or sperm, losing an organ that cannot be replaced is very different situation and I don't think the practice of payment is in place in many countries in the world. Blood donations I would not find unethical if donaters were paid.


----------



## bottleofwater

I agree Tony, some research should be undertaken.  But it is not just the States that pays Donors, they also pay donors In Eastern Europe, Spain, Cyprus, Greece, South Africa.


----------



## Anthony Reid

I picked the states out of the air.

Some of the other catholic countries like Spain have more eggs simply because there are other factors at play here - such as its against the law to destroy embryos or donate them to research (desipite 74% of spanish patients with frozen embryos not wanting to donate to other patients -
http://www.ivf.net/ivf/index.php?page=out&id=169 )

Many embryos are abandoned and put up for adoption by the Spanish clinics.

/links


----------



## olivia m

Tony is right, we do need more studies, bringing in a wide range of stake holders and the general public (although those not involved do need to be informed before being able to give a considered opinion).  To return again to donor conceived children/adults, some (not all) DC adults are very distressed that they came about because of a commercial transaction.  I have also heard many donor egg  recipients within our Network say how very glad they are to know that their donor gave of her eggs freely and without commercial pressure.  They say this has made them feel better about using egg donation and is information they can comfortably and proudly pass to their children.
Paying money for eggs is undoubtedly a powerful incentive.  But do young women needing money for their education really understand the long-term issues involved in donating/selling eggs?  Young people tend to live for now with little thought for the future (that's what your early twenties are for).  Could it be that some of them will regret what they have done in the future, particularly if they have fertility issues themselves later on?  Will they wonder about the children they helped create but be unable to do anything about this?   We don't have the answer to these questions yet, but altruistic donation, without a cash incentive, does mean that the heart and mind of a woman is truly engaged before making her gift.
Olivia


----------



## bottleofwater

i understand the points you raise on this, but as is the case now councelling should go through all the pitfalls and procedures before a donor consents to treatment.  But the issues would be the same for altruistic donors as for those that are paid, whose to say that those that donate and get money do not also with their heart and mind. And whose to say that an altruistic donor does not become infertile with regrets, which I have read of one woman that donated 3 times to a friend resulting in one baby and now herself needs donor eggs.

I have read on american donor sites reasons for donating when the donor writes a bio of herself, I was surprised by the high level of their thoughts on the subject.  Even though the business seems perhaps very commercial in the states, you find agencies that are very selective in donors, I imagine this is for alsorts of reasons including the fact the country is a highly litigous one and that they will need to ensure that the donors are completely aware of their circumstances.  I think this country is all about fear, and its better not to pay than create a new can of worms.


----------



## olivia m

Donors in this country certainly are counselled before donating and I think they are in the States too.  However, I do not know if they receive counselling in Spain and elsewhere in Europe.  It would be helpful for someone who knows to post that info here.
The cynic in me says that of course US donors appear to display a high level of altruism in their biographies...they want to be chosen and they know (or are advised by agencies) that this attitude will appeal to potential recipients.  The truth is that we just cannot know.  All we can know is that financial incentives can distort motivation. 
It's interesting you think that the UK's attitude is based on fear.  Myself, I think it takes courage for a government to take a decision that is in the long term interests of children and families rather putting utalitarian interests and the wishes of the powerful medical lobby first.  Now they just need to back up that courage with some cash!
Olivia


----------



## bottleofwater

I hear what you say, but think it is too easy to think cash = bad intentions and motivation, over complete altruisim. As you say we cannot no the truth and hopefully in time there will be evidence that the donors on a whole were happy with their choices, but wonder if it would ever effect the climate in this country.  I think the Government acts on caution in most situations and not on a wider choices so I do not for one second believe they were brave. I would still find it completely wrong if they were to spend millions on advertising over giving money to those that really are doing the work.  Advertising is an extremely expensive business and I do not believe most money is spent wisely in this sector.


----------



## A.T.C.C

HI there
I hope you dont mind me posting.
I am an altruistic egg donor and have donated twice.
My first donation last yr was to my local hospital, I donated to 2 unknown recipients.
This yr i donated to a known recipient.
The reason i donated to a known recipient this year was because i met her on here and she was planning on going to Spain for donor eggs. As i got to know her more i offered her my eggs because i do have a little niggle of doubts about paid donors.
Its strange because i do think that if donors were paid in this country then more people would be willing to donate. BUT... i think the payment should be something like £500. Then if someone really wanted to donate she would but if someone was doing it for the money they may think that it wasnt worth going through for £500.
Ive made this point before... i think if a doctor could say to a couple.'your treatment will cost £4000 and the waiting list is about 2yrs for a donor but if you pay an extra £500 you could have your treatment sooner' Im sure most couples would be willing to pay that extra £500 on top of the initial cost to save them waiting for 2 yrs. That way the donor is paid for by he couple.
My niggling doubt about high paid donors is the thought that they are just doing it for the money. I know that the recipient will still be getting what she wants regardless but from my personal experience i did it because i wanted to. I had no NEED to, it was just because i wanted to help someone to experience what i have experienced as a parent.
I didnt want my recipient who is also now my friend to go to Spain and recieve eggs from someone who maybe HAD to donate for financial reasons.
When i donate i do it with lots of love and positive thoughts... this probably makes no difference to the eggs but i just think it is different.
Gosh its so difficult to get my point of view across without offending peoples thoughts and their choices.
I have nothing against recipients going abroad for treatment at all.. at the end of the day they dont really have much choice when other countries have so much more to offer. How awful is that though that our own country cant offer what they need?


----------



## olivia m

Hi ATCC
Have read your posts elswhere and delighted you have joined this debate.  I will ask my uni student (sperm donor conceived) daughter what she thinks about paying around £500 to egg donors.  It won't be a defininitive answer of course, just her opinion, but as a DC adult and as someone who could (potentially) be interested in egg donation as a way of supporting her education, her response could be of interest.
Olivia


----------



## bottleofwater

HI Atcc

You have made some really good points also it is wonderful that you donate with such generosity and thought.

Olivia I do find it odd that no research has gone into this area of payment yet and if it does it should be done by a non biased agency as unfortunately alot of surveys are sometimes skewed by the objectives of the commissioning agents.


----------



## olivia m

You are right BoW, really objective research is hard to find.  For some reason academic departments seem to have a difficult time finding money to research in the area of donor assisted reproduction, and particularly around donors.  Maybe Eric Blyth would have some comment about this?
Olivia


----------



## olivia m

Just in case anyone is interested, my daughter does think £500 would be a financial inducement for a student, but she also says that as long as there is good counselling prior to donation and the donor is committed to being available to any child conceived from age 18, then the money is not an issue.  She always bangs on about, 'it's all to do with how the child is raised...if the parents are OK about what they have done and they talk about it from early on, then the child should be fine'.  She then often goes on to say, slightly more controversially, 'and if they're not fine, then they've just got to get on with life and get over it'.  Just one opinion.
Olivia


----------



## bottleofwater

Hi Olivia

I agree with your daughter  how the child is raised and told is by far the most important point. I have to say £500 would not have been an inducement for me when I was a student as it so easy to make that money doing bar work etc, with alot less hassle. Anyway she seems very smart your daughter.


----------



## A.T.C.C

I think that if a child grows up with the knowledge that they are adopted or their siblings have different dads etc then there isnt suc a big shock as there would be if they were told at an older age.
My brother and sister were from my moms first marraige but my dad bought them up as his own. I can never remember being told that they we had different dads it was just the case that ive always known so it was never an issue. I just accepted it as it was. Also my siblings always knew where their biological dad was but he never had anything to do with them and didnt want to know but they never chose to contact him.

As for the comment about the £500 .. well thats my point.. it is a lot to go through just for £500 so i really dont think people would donate for the money but it would be a nice gesture for genuine donors to recieve it for what they do.


----------



## LiziBee

Thank you to Eric for the (very interesting) article.

I went to a very sporty university and lots of lads there became donors to get 'beer money' , I was always agreeved that egg donors didn't (at that time) even get expenses, so it really wasn't worth my while but if someone had offered me £500 I'd have happily jumped in. 

But that's just my opinion. The point I wanted to make was payment or not what we need is a strong advertising campaign and even more importantly support for the families the treatment creates so that they feel confident in explaining their genetic origins right from the start.

Also I am furious at the BMA for bringing this issue up again, it is (further) muddying the waters of some very important debates and may result in other amendment which may not be in our, or our children's best interests.

Lizi.x


----------



## brownowl23

my donor donated for around £300, thats what they get paid in SA, but to them its probably the equivelant of about £500.


----------



## roze

I accept that to revert to total anonymity at this stage will make the situation for some donor conceived adults totally unacceptable. However I am still not convinced that in itself ,' the choice' to 'know' the donor is such a fantastic deal. 
I am not aware that this legislation renders the donor responsible for meeting the dc adult, or even being nice to them. I know of some adopted people in this country who have traced their birth parent and have been totally rejected by them. People talk so much these days about ' rights ' and choice. Do we really need so much ' choice'?  

Prior to my giving birth, I was given a ' choice'. I could ' choose' to have a c section, as my baby was breech, or I could ' choose' to have a natural birth.  Basically to have a c section I had to sign a form accepting a range of risks including death of myself or the child, or to have a ' natural' delivery where I would be required to sign something similar. So what sort of ' choice' was that. What I really wanted was for someone to MAKE A BALANCED MEDICAL DECISION FOR WHICH THEY WERE PAID TO DO. 

Is it not the fact that ' choice' is overrated?  Would a DC child be counting the days before he/she is 18 and can trace the donor?  Is it correct to raise that child's expectations that, having become bored in adolescence with two parents, why not have a third.?  Personally I think that philosophically speaking, the argument is becoming increasingly academic, particularly with the recent court case involving a sperm donor where the man was forced to pay Child Support.  I have yet to hear that this is not a precedent for donors recruited through British clinics.

My view remains that a child needs only two parents, not three or four, in the case of double donation, and that there is also, despite protestations of some who argue falsely that a' majority' of  dc adults want this and that, an argument for not making it possible for the child to be able to identify the donor.  After all, 'I' and 'we' did not choose to be conceived or born. If my parents had conceived  the day before, would 'I' be a different person, or the same.  Did I have a 'right' not to be born where I was , in a virtual war zone?  Did I not have the ' right' to have siblings and not be an only child?
Can I hold this against my parents also?  The list is endless.  Philosophically speaking, the ' right' to know the donor is another concept up for grabs.


roze


----------



## olivia m

Just on a point of fact Roze, the Enfield man who is having to pay child maintenance donated his sperm privately outside of the licensed clinic system.  He could not have been prosecuted had he donated at a clinic licensed by the HFEA.
Olivia


----------



## jend (jenny)

why not give the Donner the desicin if they want to get found in years to come or not .....if it wasnt for folk like that we wouldn't have DH son here now and i take my hats of to Donner's egg and sperm


----------



## ♥JJ1♥

The clinics are still making a fortune out of the sperm donor shortage as their prices for donor sperm rises as the shortage and waiting lists grow. I do think that the men and women should be paid a set fee.

I have a known sperm donor (friend) and would have been more than happy to pay him for sperm.
L x


----------



## olivia m

The reason that donors do not make the decision as to whether they should be found or not in the future is because it would be unfair on the children, some of whom would be able to 'find' their donor and others would not.  It could also be damaging to family relationships if a child blamed their parents for choosing a donor who had chosen to remain anonymous, when they could have chosen an identifiable one. 
Only those, very special and wonderful, men and women who understand the future potential needs of children created from their gift, should be donating eggs or sperm.  They have all their expenses refunded and can claim up to £200 in lost earnings.  Altruism has to come first when it comes to making new life, but no donor should ever be financially out of pocket.
Olivia


----------



## A.T.C.C

Hi there. I just wanted to say that from my point of view when you are a donor you obviously look into it all and weigh things up. 
I did consider the possibility of a knock on the door in 18 yrs but i have never for 1 minute thought that i would be any kind of parent for the child concieved from my donation. 
I would hope that a child wouldnt be knocking looking for another parent cos i didnt donate to be a parent, i donated to allow a couple to be parents.
I would welcome anyone who knocked on my door into my family but only as me being the donor and nothing else. 
When you choose to doante you do it to help people and not for anything in return.
I hope that any recipient of donor eggs or sperm wouldnt feel that the donor was any kind of threat to them as a parent in the future.. it isnt that way at all.


----------



## olivia m

Thank you for this ATCC...this is just why it is so important that parents tell their child about being conceived with the help of a donor.  Those who have grown up with the information will NOT be looking for a parent, just some information about background, medical history and a sense of who their donor is is order to help them know who they are.  Those who find out or who are 'told' much later, particularly if it is under poor circumstances, may be feeling disaffected and betrayed by their parents and looking to their donor to provide something much more than information.
Olivia


----------



## roze

Yet more patronising preaching from the DCN.

The decision to tell must remain the choice of the parent full stop. 

There are no guarantees that such information is/will be helpful to the donor conceived adult, nor that the donor will even be willing to speak to or meet them.  It remains to be seen how much value such information actually will have in practice as it is only half the story in any case.

It remains my view that this emphasis on ensuring donor identification is the result of guilt amongst some of those who have used donor gametes, as a way of satisfying their own consciences. The fact is, we have chosen to conceive using donor gametes and hence from the start have deprived our children of 'belonging' fully to a genetic parent. Nothing will change that, its done and dusted from day one, especially not token gestures such as enabling them to obtain outline information when they are adults. 

roze


----------



## olivia m

Wow, what a cold and sceptical world you seem to live in Roze.  Just what is patronising and preaching about wanting children to feel comfortable about their donor conception and donors not to have to face needy young people on their doorstep in years hence because they haven't been told about their donor origins from an early age.
You should know that the move towards donor identification came from the donor conceived adults themselves - a case brought in the High Court no less -  not from DCN or any parents...many of whom have found it profoundly discomforting, whilst at the same time understanding that it may be important for their children.
Happy New Year to you!
Olivia


----------



## jend (jenny)

come on could you realy tell your child that looks up to you as mam or dad that yo were not his real mam or dad  my dh has son due to doner sperm and he looks up to his da as his idole we could not tell him any diffrent and shatter his world ......................


----------



## roze

I also want children to be comfortable Olivia, but the way this legislation has come about in the first place has been through emotional pressure from one or two individuals who would frankly be aggrieved about something else if it were not being donor conceived. 
The legislation has not considered effect on the benefits of giving dc kids expectations which may not be fulfilled in later life.  How does this guarantee that the donor will keep future contact details up to date, or even welcome an approach from the child. It is half the information.  Its also not considered how to manage the consequences of same.

How are children going to cope with the fact that ,say, they are told at nine years old that they are donor conceived, and hey, they will have to wait a further 9 years to find out more information. What if they think the donor will try and contact them and perhaps take them away from their parents?  I have also worked in the past as a social worker with adolescents in childrens homes and have come across many situations where kids have several ' sets' of parents and know too well the tussles that can occur.

As I have said before, it is the tone of your posts, Olivia that I consider preaching, patronising and sanctimonius as is the judgment inherent in every statement you make, which I admit you hide well these days, however I remember too well the posts of old when things were less concealed.

roze


----------



## olivia m

Roze - You make some really good points that DCN is only too aware of.  It is true that little proper thought has yet been given to how applicants to the Register will be supported and it is perfectly true that there is no guarantee at all that a donor will respond in a sensitive/appropriate way if and when a young person approaches them in the future...if indeed they can be found at all.  This is one of the reasons that DCN is lobbying for counselling and intermediary services for those approaching the Register to be built into the new HFE Bill currently ging through Parliament.  It is also a reason for donors only to be recruited from those people who can show that they have an understanding of the future needs of DC people - this is not true of all post 2005 sperm donors.
I think you only used age 9 as an illustration, but just to say that this is quite late to start introducing the topic of donor conception.  Our experience shows that starting under age five means that a child will not remember when they 'didn't know' and as such is likely to completely accept 'their story'.  If parents are confident and comfortable with the decisions they have made then they are unlikely to tell the story in a way that might make a child think their donor could come and take them away.  DC children (in intact, non-abusing families) are very different to those who find themselves in children's homes.
I am sorry that you find my style as described above.  There is never any judgement implied.  My personal postings of two years ago were very unhelpful I agree.  I am sad that you seem to think it is not possible for me to have learned a thing or two and changed.  Your cynicism does not do your obvious intelligence justice.
Olivia


----------



## olivia m

Hi Jend
I can understand how you and your partner feel about explaining to his son that he is donor conceived, but there is no reason why beginning the donor conception story should have an impact on how the boy feels about his dad.  Starting early - using children's language and story books - means that he will grow up accepting the part that DC played in his beginnings. Being honest with children about anything - even difficult stuff - is usually the best way.  It means that there aren't difficult secrets that might come out later.  Just imagine if in later years the boy, as a result of an illness, needed a blood transfusion or transplant from a family member.  How would he feel if he found out then that his dad was not genetically related to him?  Much better that he should grow up with the information from the start.  Have a look at the books on our web site www.dcnetwork.org  There are story books for young children and Telling and Talking books to help you and your partner get your heads round 'telling' and practical ideas of how you can bring the subject up and language to use.  Children have no difficulty by the age of eight, when they start to really understand what DC means, in telling the difference between a donor and a dad.  They still idolise their dad!

No doubt Roze will think I am being patronising again, but I hope you and others just find the information interesting and helpful.
Olivia


----------



## Clare the minx

Just had to jump on this board and say my two penny's worth!I think it should be the right of the parents of a child conceived from a donor to decide whether they want THEIR child to know or not.I am a parent of a child conceived using donor sperm and must say that neither myself or my partner are telling our son as telling him won't enhance his life or make him feel whole as a person.If a parent wants their child to know then that is up to them and I don't feel like anyone should be forced or pushed into telling the child if that's not what they want.As a parent we all do what we think is best for our child and as we each know our own child we are able to decide whether them knowing or not knowing would be for the best for our child.
Also I know that the hospital we had treatment from can no longer get hold of Donor sperm and has not had any now for over 2 years since the laws changed so we'd have to go to a different hospital and pay alot more for us to have another child.It amazes me that people who donate are given no money to very little for their donation yet people are charged a fortune to use the donor's sperm and no I'm not thick and understand that they have to wash the sperm etc but for alot of people to have to pay out a lot of money and then it doesn't work is very disheartening.


----------



## jend (jenny)

olivia  thanks for you reply   

but why start all this  whenthey didnt bother there  butts about it b4 !!!


HERE HERE CALRE THE MINX!!!!!!!


----------



## olivia m

Jend
I wonder if you would like to explain a bit more about what you mean by 'not bothering their butts about it before'.

Claire
The reason you are having difficulty in finding donor sperm is because so many recruiting centres decided they did not want to spend the time, energy and particularly money attempting to recruit a different sort of donor - someone who would think about what their contribution might mean in the future to children they helped to create.  Centres that did make this effort have had no difficulty in recruiting identifiable donors.  I am really sorry that you are having such trouble but blame your clinic for failing to change their practices, not the change in the law.
I assume you have taken the change of law into account in your wish to donate eggs in the future (your post on another thread).
Olivia


----------



## Clare the minx

olivia m said:


> Claire
> The reason you are having difficulty in finding donor sperm is because so many recruiting centres decided they did not want to spend the time, energy and particularly money attempting to recruit a different sort of donor - someone who would think about what their contribution might mean in the future to children they helped to create. Centres that did make this effort have had no difficulty in recruiting identifiable donors. I am really sorry that you are having such trouble but blame your clinic for failing to change their practices, not the change in the law.
> I assume you have taken the change of law into account in your wish to donate eggs in the future (your post on another thread).
> Olivia


My clinic was actually my hospital so no I bet they don't have a recruiting centre and have had to be referred to CARE instead.And yes I want to donate eggs not because the laws changed but because having had fertility problems myself I would like to be able to give someone else a chance for a child of their own.
But there are people who use to donate who never had fertility problems and since law changed will not donate again as they don't want the chance a child may turn up on their door in years to come,for me I know how hard it is when you want a child but can't have one naturally which is why I want to donate.

But as I've said earlier I think that it's up to the parent whether they should know or not and the donor should also be given the right to decide if they wanted to remain anonymous or not.If you gave both donor and receiver the choice maybe more would donate again.If anything I think the cost of everything should be looked into as I know you can be paying from £600+ for just donor sperm also the donor's hardly receive anything so what incentive is there for those who've never had fertility problems to donate?


----------



## olivia m

Claire
The problem with giving both donor and recipient a choice about being identifiable is that it takes choices away from the children whose parents chose anonymous donors.  I guess you may feel this is not a problem if children are not told about their donor conception anyway, but many do find out one way or another over the years and they may not only feel betrayed by having this information kept from them but angry that their parents chose an anonymous donor as well.  Of course this may not happen at all but it seems to me that it is not a risk worth taking with family relationships.
Just something to think about.
Olivia


----------



## Clare the minx

I agree that a child may find out over the years and yes they may then be angry at their parents for not being told but the same can be said for children that do know,they can also be angry at their parents or feel less a family member as they may feel differences between them and their non-biological parent,also it's hard for any person to admit to anyone else never mind actually telling the child that they have fertility problems.
I could not imagine my partner drinking in pub with his brothers and friends telling them he's infertile as they would most definitely take the mick out of him making him feel inadequate as man which would cause problems in our family as that would really hurt him,And yes in an ideal world everybody would be understanding but that's not the world we live in which is really a sad thing but that's the way it is.
Also my partners parents are VERY old fashioned and we already know they would not accept our son if they knew he wasn't biologically his and I don't want to subject our child to any hurtful remarks.Yes once again this is sad but we can't choose our families or dictate what they what they should say or do.Either way telling or not telling may cause problems in any family which is why I feel that it should be up to parents to decide what they think is best for their family as it affects them and their lives.


----------



## roze

To me Clare's post portrays the reality, rather than the ideal, of donor conception. I think Governments and social workers live in a textbook land.
In an ideal world it may be good to tell but as she points out, it brings its own problems which are difficult to manage. The decision as to whether, when, and how, should remain the parent's as it is they who are the best judge of the overall family situation and what is best for their child.

The legislation to remove anonymity and further attempts for state control over encouraging telling are absurd. The whole thing is however increasingly academic as there is still a shortage of donor oocytes and sperm in the UK, and people will continue to go abroad.

roze


----------



## roze

I have taken this from another post on FF. It does I think sum up the moral conundrum perfectly;

As Whipp believes
> that the removal of donor anonymity does not protect children from the intrinsic
> injustices: “Why should the child be held hostage for 18 years, denied a 
> relationship with one of its parents, just to satisfy the whims of adults?”
Precisely.  It is horrendous, that children must wait until they are 18, to find out more about the donor.

roze


----------



## olivia m

Claire
I am really sad and sorry to hear of the small mindedness of your partner's family and friends.  This is NOT true for everyone, many men do talk with family and their mates about their infertility and receive nothing but respect and support.  I do of course respect that this is the reality of your situation.

Roze
Christine Whipp, as I am sure you know, is a donor conceived adult who did not discover her origins until she was 35 and then under very difficult circumstances...having already suffered a pretty dysfunctional childhood.  Unlike children who have been told from the beginning, Whipp believes her donor to be a 'parent'.  In 15 years of DC Network and after talking to thousands of families, I have only ever come across one donor conceived child who had been 'told' early and was angry with her parents.  There could be others of course but I haven't come across them.  
Children who are 'told' early rarely want to have contact with their donor before 18...in fact many don't want contact then either...they are too busy with more important things in their lives.  It is those who get the news late who feel betrayed and angry, have difficulty in trusting others and have a tendency to want to have a parental relationship with their donor.
Olivia


----------



## natalie34

On a slightly different slant to this debate - does anyone know why 45 years of age has to be the cutoff for men to donate?

If you see my signature below, you will see that our situation has remarkably turned around from one extreme to the next.

We very much wanted to give something back as we are now in a position to do so and were told DH is too old (46). I cannot understand why if the inidividual's count meets the criteria for donation, why age is an issue?

We personally do not have an issue with anonymity but cannot donate - madness in the current climate don't you think?

Natalie x


----------



## daisyg

Natalie,

It may be because chromosomal abnormality increases in sperm from men over the age of 40+ (as is the case with women's eggs).

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/44641.php

I think most women, like those using donor eggs, would prefer sperm from a younger donor (for the reasons outlined above) as they want the best chance for optimum sperm, sorry. It is a great shame as it is wonderful that your DH wants to donate given the shortage of donors etc.

Daisy


----------



## olivia m

Just to add to what Daisy has said, it is just possible that the age limit for donating sperm will be raised for suitable individuals under some proposals that are going to be made by the British Fertility Society shortly.  It is seen as ONE of the ways forward to help increase the number of donors in the UK, as older men are likely to be more altruistic in their approach than those who have yet to have families themselves.
Olivia


----------



## laurab

Wow, I've just popped over to ask some questions and found this very interesting thread, I'm just making some decisions over anon or non-anon donor.  There is so much to think about and decide... wow wouldn't it be great if we could have a discussion with our donor conceived child to find out there opinions in advance.

I'm sure though after all we have been through we have all thought through our decisions very carefully and will all be wonderful caring parents and surely that is the main thing?

As a social worker (hopefully living in reality not text book world!!) I see some horrible things and lovely parents whether genetically or not make a child's life.

Hope you all make the decision that is right for you and your family.


----------



## bottleofwater

I would want my child to know their donor if they wanted to, but unfortunately I cannot afford the wait in this country.  Plus I know there is a higher success abroad and they are both my deceding options.


----------



## A.T.C.C

Just a little story here to maybe point something out??
My brother and sister have a different dad to me. He left my mom when my sister was 2 weks old and never had anything to do with them. 
My mom met my dad and i was born when my sister was 3. My bro and sis always called my dad 'dad' but they knew they had another biological father. 
We were never sat down and told it was just that we all knew. It was never an issue.
The biological father went on to have 2 daughters with another lady and when the eldest was 19 she found some papers in her dads personal things and it was about my bro and sister.
She conacted my sister and came to meet us all. She only came a few times but i suppose that was enought to satisfy her curiosity. My bro and sis on the other hand werent curious about them at all cos they werent kept a secret so it wasnt an issue.
In this im not saying anything about wether to tell the child cos i honestly believe that down to  the choice of the parents but i just wanted to point out that if children know something from a young age and are told sensibly and properly then they accept things much easier than us adults do.


----------



## roze

Laurab, just to say that I have nothing against social workers per se, however your view does seem unique and refreshing.
If you do not work in the field of adoption then you ought to, as most of your colleagues would rather see children languish in a tangle of bureaucracy rather than consider people over 40 for adoption of younger children. 
We felt we could make a positive difference to a childs life and would be wonderful parents, and went down this route a few years ago but met nothing but patronising and hostility in the early meetings, so we gave up rather than experience further pain and anguish and effectively failure.
We were told off for seeking a child by donor conception especially abroad and that it was likely to influence the Panel negatively. Given the relatively broad approach in respect of gay and single person adoptions, it seems odd that these views are still so strong. 

I would also prefer my child to have info about their donor but not half the story at 18 in the way legislation dictates as I genuinely do not see what it adds. It simply gives legislators a way out in a situation where ' something' had to be done.

regards


roze


----------



## laurab

Roze- I do understand where you are coming from.  I do not work in adoption but some of my clients are fostered/ adopted and I unfortunately have alot of clients who have experienced quite horrific treatment at the hands of there bio-families.  

It does make me so cross when I hear of people so desperately have love to give and are not allowed to adopt due to something daft like being over 40. I'm not actually sure what the cut off age is but as the majority of people can still get preg up to there early 40's, seems daft you can't adopt.  My other FF has recently been to a meeting about adoption and she came away so negative from the meeting.  She is a young, married hetrosexual couple who is a teacher (I thought she would be snapped up for ticking all the boxes) but they told her only sibling groups or older or disabled child.  Which I don't understand when they are advertising all the time for people to adopt? 

Anyway enough of my waffle.  Congratulations on the birth of your little girl.

Bottleof water - Please don't feel that you have to come on here and justify yourself.  I don't think any of us make these decisions lightly.  I have just startd a journal about my IVF 'donor' journey, I thought I would write down how I was feeling about it all and the reasons behind my decisions..  I hope one day to be able to give it to my child    to show them about the process that led me to get a donor etc etc.

I still have not made any decisions over what I will do.

XXX


----------



## veballan

Hello everyone having read all the posts it has really become a heated debate on these issues. 

I was especially interested in the responses debating how and when to tell a child of their origins. 

I am in agreement with donors getting paid for several reasons first, all the expense required by someone who is required to take time off work, have tests and travel to all the appointments required for donation. I might be unduly suspicious of someones motives if they spent lots of money in ensuring they become a donor- maybe that thought is unfounded but again my comment is open to debate.

Secondly it might encourage a wider section of the population to become donors meaning a wider gene pool, this can only have a positive outcome.  

Eric Blyth in his assessment of four categories left out a fifth catergory of donor child those where the parents still chose to go abroad for anonymous donor treatment and thus at present do not come under the **** rules. 

My husband and I find ourselves in this category and to be honest we will never know how our little girl will judge us for choosing a donor let alone annoymous donor as a opposed to an ID release donor but we will have to do that when the time comes to tell her of her origins. 

We had several reasons for choosing this route we didn't want our child to inherit my husbands Polycystic Kidney disease which is autosomal dominant and a child conceived naturally between us would have a one in two chance of having this debilatating condition. This gene at present cannot be pre-assessed through the use of IVF and PGD.  The devastating effects of such a disease are that my hubby is 37 and due to have a kidney transplant in two weeks time - his identical twin has the same condition. 

There is no such thing as a perfect child health in health terms however, we wanted a child to have a reasonable chance of a health, come from a healthy biological background, display a family resemblance, superficially have the same blood group as one of us etc. We choose to use a anoymous donor to fullfill these requirements because from one overseas bank  we had a choice of close to 40 donors who closely matched this criteria. They had only one ID release donor who was not a good match. In this country at present I think we could agree that you have to be grateful for a chance to use just any willing or available donor.

At the same time we imported samples from a US donor which we considered using in order to beat the Feb 2007 ban. This donor had a less than an optimum background in helath term as did a lot of the ones we looked at that seemed to be a match for my husbands features/ character. But to be honest this donor was an overall a better choice than others we had looked at that had type ii diabetes etc. After much deliberation we decided not to use that donor in the end but to travel abroad to have tx because the choice of suitable donor was greater. This was our choice and we will have to live with the outcome that our donor was not ID release but we would not change our decision. However, we would like to have another child and do think it important that we use the same donor. 

On a positive note the **** will now allow us to donate these samples to another receipient provided the donor's quota in the UK has not been reached, so at least another couple will benefit from our decision. 

I am in favour of placing the basics regarding my childs details, donor ientity code, bank etc on a register with the bank itself or **** so that in the case of emergencies e.g inherited medical conditions both donor and child could always be traced through a responsible independant body. 


I know our decision to chose an anonymous donor over an ID release donor might appear selfish and could come back to haunt us through our daughter's appreciation of our decision, but I agree told early we can only pray she understands why we made that choice. Some might say having children in itself is a selfish act.


On another subject raised by Blyth annotating the childs birth certificate with an emblem depicting their origins I think is wholely unreasonable and open to all sorts of problems. 
My daugher is 10 weeks old and already her birth certificate has been seen by a multitute of people both in an unofficial an official capacity (child benefit etc) etc. People will become quickly familar with what such annotation means and it unreasonable and an invasion of the privacy of a minor that someone will be able to tell my childs origins before they are themselves able to comprehend the meaning of such.  

I also think this proposal to be discrimmatory of those children who were conceived by donor through choice as oppposed to a parent simply choosing to cover up their childs biological origins by naming another person on the birth certificate. 

I would welcome your comments please.  


Regards

Veballan


----------



## olivia m

Hi Veballan
Just to say that in the case of sperm or egg donation abroad, it is not possible to place any details on the HFEA's register as the conception took place outside of their jurisdiction.  Outside of Australia, New Zealand and Canada, I do not know of a country that has a central register of donors, treatments, outcomes etc. so it may not be possible to have your child's details registered anywhere other than with your clinic...and the records may or may not be protected if the clinic closes down.  You should make enquiries about this.

Regarding birth certificate annotation, the Government's position at present is that it believes that children should be told about their donor conception but they think it may be counter-productive to mark the birth certificate.  They believe that parents should be supported towards 'telling' by means of awareness raising and education and to this end they are strengthening the role that clinics (in the UK) will play in promoting openness and funding the Donor Conception Network to run workshops in Telling and Talking for DC parents and Preparing Yourself courses for those contemplating donor conception.
The issue of birth certificates and their role in revealing DC information, will be reviewed four years after the enactment of the new HFE Act, ie. in about five years time.
Olivia


----------

