# BBC Radio 4 Moral Maze



## DippyGirl (Mar 10, 2005)

Interesting debate pn donor eggs, touches on doner sperm too.

Heard most of it, seemed quite balanced, found myself liking Michael Portillo 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00rblxz#synopsis


----------



## kittenorcub (Mar 5, 2010)

I thought this was a really good programme for many reasons -mostly because the sort of stereotypical views that people have about "designer babies" and eugenics was very well debated. I too found myself liking Portillo - he seemed to empathsie in a way that showed insight - maybe he knows someone whom this subject has touched?

I am always interested when liberal do gooders go on about "the unethical" infertiles who seek donation and exploit donors etc....often when you look at their backgrounds they have one or more naturally conceived- with -no  - problems child/ren - "walk a mile in my shoes will you?!" i feel like screaming at the radio/tc! 

I also was interested in what they were saying about the randomness of genetics - i really think that "joe public" believes that genes are the most important factor in reproduction - that somehow a child's fate is sealed in thow two cells that made the embryo and then divided, and yet even the geneticists themselves say so little is really known about genes, and yet society places so mcuh emphasis on genes and genetic links. In other words, you can not choose "genetic" preferences in a donor and know they will manifest in the child - it just does not work like that! Therefore the whole issue of genetic "breeding" or "selection" is not an exact science.

I was listening to a bulletin yesterday morning, when they had the American doctor who is running the "raffle" that Pinkcat described, and afterwards a woman doctor came on and said about 1 in 5 fathers inthe Uk currently are parenting a child/ren who they think are genetically their own, but who are in fact not - so in effect, that statistic shows there is "unknowing" donor gamete selection going on without medical intervention anyway!

Kitten


----------



## DippyGirl (Mar 10, 2005)

Certainly food for thought, that woman discussing her research into attitudes of children from donor sperm annoyed me, Portillo put her in her place I think 

I do wonder at the motivation of the fertility clinic doing the raffle, do you think that it is to encourage debate


----------



## karenanna (Dec 27, 2008)

Having cycled at this clinic previously, I suspect theri motivation is PR and money for themselves. I don't think they are doing it spark debate or for higher moral reasons - sorry to be cynical, but have you read the review section for them.

Karenanna


----------



## chocolate_teapot (Sep 10, 2008)

kittenorcub said:


> I am always interested when liberal do gooders go on about "the unethical" infertiles who seek donation and exploit donors etc....often when you look at their backgrounds they have one or more naturally conceived- with -no - problems child/ren - "walk a mile in my shoes will you?!" i feel like screaming at the radio/tc!
> 
> Kitten


I think the problem is that not all fertility treatment centres have the same ethical guidelines that we do in Europe. I read an exposé a few years ago that looked at some really dodgy fertility practises where women were basically being exploited - encouraged to produce more eggs than they should have done and they accepted because they were so poor. Obviously this is quite different to someone donating eggs of their own free will. I think anyone who is looking for donor eggs has a duty to check (as far as possible) that their centre is ethical - and yes I have had fertility problems of my own!


----------



## kittenorcub (Mar 5, 2010)

chocolate_teapot said:


> kittenorcub said:
> 
> 
> > "walk a mile in my shoes will you?!"
> ...


When I said "walk a mile" I meant it "walk a mile in my donor tx shoes.."...did you use donor gametes chocolateteapot?

While I think that debate is good and I am not saying that i am right, I think there is a great deal of moralizing done by those who have never had to consider the option being debated. Also those who proffer opinions are not aware of *all *the ramifications of choosing donor gametes - this was certainly the case with two of those on the Moral Maze programme. It is often easy to be liberal and magnanimous from the sidelines, but for those of us in the "trenches", the debate that we go through in our own minds is more thorough and more wide ranging than anyone's.

People who do not have to face this choice often have little idea what those of us who do have to face the choice, have to go through IN ADDITION to other infertility issues. While I am sure there may be clinics who use so called "dodgy practices", i am also sure they are few (whether in Europe or not), and the fact is that unless you are faced with the reality that you will not be able to use your own eggs/own sperm, you can only surmize what goes on in the decision making process to move to donor gametes. People who do so, do so after much thought, research and careful weighing up of all the potential issues this will raise both at the time of tx and for the rest of their child's life. We (donees of donor gametes) are not wishing to exploit anyone - the donor's choice is to donate - if they are compensated for making that choice, then I suppose that is a reflection of Society's general attitude to altruism - is any act truly altruistic in the true sense of the word? - any kind act for example, produces a "feel good" feeling in the person doing the act.

The science behind the production of eggs shows clearly that overstimulation does not necessarily produce the most mature and suitable eggs and so I know for many clinics the onus is on producing fewer but better quality eggs and not to overstimulate the donor.

So, while I accept that everyone has an opinion - let's face it those of needing assisted conception are "judged" from many quarters, I think the debate on donor gametes and the procurement thereof needs to be further discussed, more information made available to the public to counteract all those who have narrow views based on incomplete or inaccurate information, and also more people need to be honest about the fact that they have had donor tx - otherwise those that do need donor tx have to have debates about how they will help their child deal with Society's attitude to the fact they were donor conceived (see other threads on FF where people are agnonising about these sorts of decisions).

karenanna, it is interesting what you say about the Clinic concerned - I did not think that they were being "altruistic"! Again, most of us who have been to any clinic know that their motivation is profit as well as to help and tx patients - the whole "business" of IF is a business for so many.

I really worry about having donor tx for the very reasons that people will judge me for being part of some sort of exploitation of the donor/s. More, i worry about how people treat donor conceived children - Michael Portillo made a really good point to the woman who had done the research on donor conceived children - he said "did you ask them if they wished they had not been conceived?" - she had not asked that question of any of those she studied, but I suspect the answer for most if not all would be "no I do not wish i had not been conceived" - further I am sure that if you asked them about the issue of exploitation of their donor/s none would condone this, but then as I have said before, I honestly do not believe that anyone considering donor tx would condone exploitation either, because they would suspect that if the clinic were prepared to expoit the donor then they would have no hesitation in exploiting the donees as well!

Kitten


----------



## chocolate_teapot (Sep 10, 2008)

Kitten - I would never judge someone for using donor eggs or sperm all I am saying is that I think that if you do, you have a duty to research where those eggs are coming from - just as all of us have a duty to try not to exploit child labour when we are buying our clothes etc. I know a lot of people do but until the issue of exploitation is addressed then there will be a stigma attached to egg donation. It is only by really examining the practise that the stigma can be removed in my opinion. Personally, we didn't use donor gametes - we were told that it would probably be necessary but in the end we managed it on our own (ok, not completely on our own but you know what I mean!) and I am very grateful for that. It was however something that we discussed at great length.


----------



## kittenorcub (Mar 5, 2010)

Chocolateteapot, sorry to be be pernickety AND sorry that this is going to be long post, but I am afraid I do not agree with you that the reason there is a sort of "societal stigma" is due to the possible "exploitation" of donors". Instead I have read alot about Society's attitude to donor gametes and found a very good study which suggested that instead, negative attitudes to donor gametes came from the normative "folk" model of "kinship" - simply that people attach a great significance to "blood" relationships. This was discussed in detail in a study (link attached)

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VBF-4FSFXJJ-2&_user=10&_coverDate=09%2F30%2F2005&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1249634872&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=adc3359f188b3257ffd2b8201f992487

The study said that implicit genetic links are commonly reinforced through observations about a child's physical similarity to parents or other family members, i.e., "resemblance talk".

It went on to state that for parents of children conceived with donor eggs or sperm, resemblance talk represents the ongoing threat that comments about physical appearance could stigmatize their children or cast doubt on the legitimacy of their family structure. I have actually seen a thread by another FFer, where her son is donor conceived in Spain, and he is (in her words, not mine) "very dark" compared to her and DH and she is getting comments at the school gate and has had to seek counselling about how to deal with it.

Furthermore, they found in the study that these concerns were present regardless of whether a sperm or egg donor had been used and irrespective of the parents' disclosure decision, i.e., whether or not their children were told of the true nature of their conception. Parents found that resemblance talk was not only ubiquitous, unavoidable, and uncontrollable, but it also had the capacity to exacerbate ongoing uncertainties about their disclosure decision (or lack of one), worries about establishing their child within the extended family, and apprehension that insensitive remarks could make the child feel different from other family members. As a result, many couples spent considerable energy developing a variety of strategies for managing resemblance talk that included genetic plausibility arguments, "passing", and strategic silence.

The study concluded that parents of children conceived with a donor address and contest normative definitions of kinship and family, including stigma and otherness, resist challenges to the family they have created, and, to some extent, rework their allegiance to cultural norms to suit their own needs. Because resemblance talk and disclosure decisions are frequently tied to each other, it is likely that if the public were more accepting of difference, parents would likely feel more comfortable with disclosure. Yet resemblance talk may make it more difficult for parents to disclose, not easier, as long as attitudes about the implicit primacy of genetic connectedness prevail.

The study has illustrated exactly the sort of dilemmas I have faced, and many others also. I am sorry but in my experience of talking to people, no one has ever focussed on the donors or their welfare, but rather the fact that they consider the issue of donor gametes unnecessary, citing (to me atleast) that I should adopt instead because they are so many "needy children...". I think that becaue people attach so much stock to "genetic links" they see donor gametes as somehow threatening the status quo, and that adoption is the "cure" for the type of infertility that results from not being able to use your own genetic "material". For all of us who have ruled out adoption and know the way forward is donor gametes, we should not have to justify the "want" for donor gametes.

I have come to accept that there is "supply and demand" when it comes to donor gametes - this naturally creates a "market" - it is inevitable. Your analogy of likening it to choosing to not exploit child labour, while seemingly logical, does not "hold water" - yes of course we should not exploit child labour, but the reality is that in Society's where children are expected to work, when that source of work is taken away, the children are forced into "dirtier" and more "life threatening" work scenarios - going from sweatshops to, for example, battery making factories etc. Just ask charitable/aid organisations who work in this area. I digress. What I am trying to say is that the issue of donor gametes/sourcing/payment/treatment of donors etc is so much more complex than merely stating that one should investigate the motives of the clinic and donors.

I have waffled on but I know that many women look at forums like this, and may feel more marginalised than they already do, and I wanted to provide some sources of info that they can look at and further their own reasearch and hopefully help them to decide about whether this is the right option for them. I am still coming to terms with it all, and since for almost 10 years I have had to endure people's opinions on first the "rights" or "wrongs" of IVF, then the issue of "older women having babies", then hearing them tell me that "I should" adopt, and now having to deal with the negative sterotyping that goes on around people who use donor gametes, I really feel that I have to defend myself and anyone else who is going through this.

and breathe......

Kitten


----------



## roze (Mar 20, 2004)

Kittenorcub, I really liked your post and your frankness.

My experience of ' resemblance' and genetic links- my three children are donor conceived from the same partner and egg donor. One of my twins looks a lot like her older sister, yet also very different from her older sister in many ways.  My other twin is totally different in hair/eye/skin colour than both of them, also body type and facial characteristics, so much so that people do not really get that they are twins- I have had several people say this to me today and even one say that they could not be twins.
When they are both wearing hats in their car seats I can hardly tell the difference as without hair and a lot of their heads showing they have the same profile so am a little relieved when it was clear to me that they were in fact resemblant enough to be sisters, but again it reveals a lot about genetics and how it can produce children who whilst clearly related, can be the individuals they undoubtedly are.

My partner also looks nothing like his mother , nor did his sister. Family resemblance is therefore very much hit and miss. The real hoot is how many people tell me how much all three of them look like me!


roze


----------



## chocolate_teapot (Sep 10, 2008)

Kitten - the article you posted is very interesting but I don't think it is the ONLY reason that there is a stigma attached to donor gametes. After all, surely adopted children are in the same position as regards "resemblance talk". Your original remark;

```
I am always interested when liberal do gooders go on about "the unethical" infertiles who seek donation and exploit donors etc....often when you look at their backgrounds they have one or more naturally conceived- with -no  - problems child/ren - "walk a mile in my shoes will you?!" i feel like screaming at the radio/tc!
```
goes to show that the discourse of donor gametes as exploitation is to some extent, present in the public conscious - that is why I think that tackling the stigma from this angle would help more people to accept donor gametes. If people respond "why don't you just adopt?" when they know you are considering donor gametes then surely this is not to do with them wanting a blood link (adopted children would not be linked by blood either) but because they think that
1) if the child is not genetically yours than you may as well adopt (ie they don't give much importance to the bonding experience of carrying a child for 9 months and probably don't realise how hard it is to adopt).
2) they think there is something ethically wrong with using donor gametes

There is not much you can do about no1 (apart from explaining the reality of adoption) but maybe there is something you can do about no2 - which is what I was trying to say in my previous post.

The article you cited is also 5 years old and I also think that it is only in the last few years that there has been much more awareness of the ethical side of egg donation - 5 years ago your average Joe Bloggs probably didn't even know that egg donation existed on such a large scale.


----------



## kittenorcub (Mar 5, 2010)

chocolate_teapot said:


> Kitten - the article you posted is very interesting but I don't think it is the ONLY reason that there is a stigma attached to donor gametes. After all, surely adopted children are in the same position as regards "resemblance talk".
> 
> ........that is why I think that tackling the stigma from this angle would help more people to accept donor gametes. If people respond "why don't you just adopt?" when they know you are considering donor gametes then surely this is not to do with them wanting a blood link (adopted children would not be linked by blood either) but because they think that
> 1) if the child is not genetically yours than you may as well adopt (ie they don't give much importance to the bonding experience of carrying a child for 9 months and probably don't realise how hard it is to adopt).
> ...


Chocolate teapot, I was not saying "resemblance talk" is the only reason for the stigma, but it would certainly explain the "black & white" attitude that many have to donor gametes - this subject polarises people, and those "nay sayers" tend to liken it to adoption, hence their "why don't you just adopt?" mantra. You are right that they misunderstand the difference (n some people's minds) between adopting a non -genetically linked child and carrying a child that is not genetically linked for 9 months (I should say here that I don't want to upset anyone who has adopted, rather I am just saying how I feel about it).

At this time (pre donor gamete tx) we have not told anyone about our plans to use donor gametes, for a multitude of reasons, one of which being the judgement that we would expect to get when going down this route. If you read the article attached

(page 4 of the link - http://www.ualberta.ca/BIOETHICS/HET%20pdfs/Vol.15,%20No1%20-%202005.pdf
(another "older" study)

it clearly shows that parents of donor conceived children have overriding desires to protect their child from negative stereotyping and views, and I certainly have very similar concerns. I agree that we do have to tackle the stigma as you say Chocolateteapot, and myself and DH are constantly talking about how we will tackle it if we experience it. If only more women (especially high profile women e.g. Hollywood A listers who have had babies later in life, and are now espousing "miraculous conceptions" or admitting IVF but no further) would come forward and admit they used donor gametes, maybe this would bring donor gametes information to the "daily mail, Hello, OK, Heat" general public more. However, I am not going to judge anyone for NOT coming forward, because as general opinion currently stands, bu doing so you open yourself up to a whole heap of scrutiny, judgement, intrusion etc.

I know the study previously mentioned (and the one above) is not recent but in terms of reasearch on this subject it is comparatively recent, because frankly, as with much related to fertility issues there is scant reasearch being done compared to other medical/ethical issues. In terms of Society's understanding having "moved on" since the study - well, I am afraid I would have to disagree with you there.

While I would agree that in the world of infertility (those suffering from IF related issues or those knowing someone who does) people *are *more enlightened, in the general population (those who have experienced little fertility problems or those who do not know people who suffer IF problems) I think there is a great deal of ignorance, dare I say it bigotry, about assisted conception of whatever kind. There is little understanding of the success rates for IVF (many believe that it is a "cure" for IF, in that it always works), little understanding of the limited role that medicine can take in helping IF people, little understanding of the processes involved etc. Yes, it is becoming more widely known that many people have to turn to assisted conception, but the debate about the "nuts and bolts" is often very scantily reported/debated in any proper/reasoned/objective fashion. The focus, sadly, is often on IVF being a "lifestyle choice" for women/couples who thought they could "have it all" (career etc), the media (e.g. the Daily "Hate" Mail) running stories linking IVF with the "much older" woman (you know the "I had a baby at 64" type stories, or the whole "Octomum-freak" type stories. I know these stories are not the ONLY stories printed, but they are the ones that those who disagree with assisted conception, etc use to justify their opinions.

I once read that you know when a debate has got to the end of the line, or got out of control when someone mentions either "the Nazis" or "Hitler" or anything similarly related - an Imust admit reviewing debates I have heard about donor gametes, someone always "throws in" something about "eugenics" - in fact (and correct me if I am wrong) but didn't someone on the Moral Maze programme mention that in essence (I know they did not use the actual term)? Earlier in this thread Pinkcat said that she was frustrated that people consider using donor gametes to be linked in some way to wanting "designer babies" and I think that is also at the root of some people's objections - if only they would educate themselves about the true nature of genetics, they would understand that it is not yet confirmed in Science that we are able to "turn on" or "turn off" genes, and that even if as donees we think we can "pick" specific genetic "traits" in our donor/s, that will not result in a child with those genes - it just does not work like that.

Finally, this whole debate has been very much in the radar of Radio 4 - Women's Hour has been considering the new Bill that is coming forth regarding the "donor sibling network" and iit was stated that as many as 1 in 10 UK children is NOT genetically related to their father, even though they think they are - maybe (I say tongue firmly in cheek ) we should all have paternity testing to prove this statistic, and then the issue of donor gametes might not be so "threatening" to those that are ethically opposed!

BTW, thanks to those who PMd me about my posts - really appreciated to know I am not alone in my thought process. This is so hard a subject to "compute" so it nice to hear from those who have been "there and worn the T shirt"!

Kitten


----------



## DDinCA (Feb 2, 2010)

Thank you, kitten & chocolate tea pot for a stirring discussion on a topic very near and dear to my heart of late. Would you mind me adding my two cents to your excellent conversation?

A few things to add: 1) I think you're right that there is a stigma to donor gametes (and even fertility treatments); 2) I think we can't separate values, attitudes, and beliefs from the debate; and 3) almost inevitably, the rhetoric leads to a blaming of women.

1 - It is natural to look at children for evidence of the parentage. I read a socio-evolutionary-bio piece years ago that said that at a certain age (I think 2 or 3 or 4 -- somewhere in there) children look more like their fathers than they will at any other age and it was theorized that this is because fathers need a reason to believe they are, in fact, the fathers -- why nurture the genes of some other guy? I have no idea how sound the study was, based on how many children, etc. My point is that if we're "wired" to get "our own genes" in the next generation, we will naturally look for ourselves in our children. If we're "wired" to want some form of immortality as we face our very real mortality, we naturally look to perpetuate ourselves in our children. All this to say -- you are both very right, that there are stigmas attached to the choice of gamete donation. There are also stigmas attached to adoption. If there weren't, parents wouldn't be reading books about how best to tell their children, and at what age, that they're adopted! No -- the "norm" is the bio reproduction based on normal sex with hetero parents -- anything that differs from that norm comes with its own baggage, and good parents have to help their kids (and themselves) find ways to face that, cope with it, and live life.

2 - I think religious and other conservatives don't like the "playing God" aspect of donor gametes, and I think more liberal folks don't like that we are going to such great lengths to create a child that is not genetically "ours" when we could adopt so many "needy" children (as already mentioned). I think people who are hard-core Darwinists (some tending towards eugenics?) might even suggest that perhaps nature knows best, and if we've been taken out of the game by our own faulty gametes, so be it -- that's the law of the jungle. Given the depth and intensity of religious and other kinds of belief/value systems, it is difficult to "argue" with them. All this to say -- it's not possible for most to simply weigh "facts" and then make rational decisions, or even to try to imagine shades of gray. No, we are too invested in our own values, attitudes, beliefs, and insecurities.

3 - I had a woman ask me, with a note of disbelief, if I really would claim that all women have the "right" to have children and that their insurance should pay for that. I countered that I would not necessarily make *that* argument, but that I would make this one: If the "system" will pay for a man's viagra because his erectile dysfunction causes a significant loss of his enjoyment of life, that certainly a woman is entitled to the same state of the art health care system to find out why she has so many baffling symptoms which include pain and bleeding. But no -- the American system (if you're not covered for fertility) won't even include basic tests to find out why the woman is not healthy -- turning down reasonable requests for hysteroscopy, ultrasounds, and even blood tests -- or demanding you pay out of pocket for these tests. By the time many women find out what's really wrong, they are older, they are broke, and their only option is fertility treatment (again, not paid for via insurance). Yet, you can believe that if a man had unexplained pain or bleeding they would throw every test in the book at him -- but women? No -- it's all a ruse to get fertility coverage! So, while I may not be prepared to state that all women have a RIGHT to reproduce and should have full coverage to do so, I would darn well make the argument that a woman has a right to full and adequate health care, which iNCLUDES reproductive health! (note: I'm not saying that a woman doesn't have that right -- it's just not the argument I was making)

And where does this lead? When media only cover the OctoMoms or the 65 year old woman who "forgot" to have kids they create the impression that women seeking fertility treatments are older women who tried to have it all and realized too late they couldn't, and now want the taxpayer or the poor insurance companies to foot the bill for their selfish choices.

The underlying rhetoric of ALL of these kinds of stories and debates is that somehow women are to blame -- either they've been *selfish* (in putting off having kids for the sake of their careers, or in wanting to be pregnant rather than adopting the needy children of the world) or are the victims of their *own foolish choices* (you should have married that loser in school and then you'd have four kids now instead of finding a sperm donor because you were too picky in waiting for the right guy; you should have been a heterosexual; you should not have married an older man; you should not have developed your diet coke habit...and on and on and on).

As is true in so much of life, for me it boils down to issues of moderation. If people pay tens of thousands of dollars for only the best looking or smartest donors, then we can say that this goes too far. If clinics go from wanting to make a decent living via helping people make babies to sacrificing the health, safety, or well being of others to make an even better living, we'd say they've gone too far. If donors could use a bit of extra cash and can feel so good helping others, we'd say they're grand, but if donors started treating this as a regular source of income and began "exploiting" desperately infertile couples by charging ludicrous amounts of money for the gametes, then we'd say they've gone too far. If a person has to give up his/her dreams of his/her own genes in their child, and they say, "but I would like the baby to at least have a chance at resembling me..." we'd say that's normal, but if a short, fat, stupid, shallow man insists on only tall, elegant, thin, genius donors, we'd say he's going for a designer baby...

So when our media stories focus on the outliers, public opinion is skewed, and not just because of the stories being told -- because the media narrative MATCHES what they suspect to be true, or what they fear might be true. And until you've traveled the journey or held the hand of a person traveling this journey, you really don't get that there are as many unique stories as there are infertile people.

Whew. Sorry for the long rant. Clearly this touched a nerve with me! Thanks again for the spirited discussion.


----------



## kittenorcub (Mar 5, 2010)

DDinCA, Thank you so much for joining in the debate - you expressed the issues so clearly - thank you. I have to say that I agree with everything you say - I too had read the above socio-evolutionary theory - and I do think that human beings are "wired" to look for the similarities - i think the study about "resemblance talk" just reinforces these earlier studies - almost the first thing people do when looking at children is try and link them in some "resemblance" way to their parent/s - and if you do not look like either parent how aften are inappropriate comments made about "outside influences"! (milkman jokes etc)

Ahhhh DDinCA, don't you just love the "playing God" argument that so many throw at us?! and again, the issue of eugenics is always thrown in the faces of those seeking donor gametes! - that's why i mentioned it earlier - what most people fail to realise is that it is not yet possible for science to "turn off and on" genes and so the idea of creating some sort of "perfect" human being by selection is not an absolute certainty and NOT what I hear most average people talking about donor gametes being concerned about - we all say that a healthy live child is our goal since so many of us have had the heartache of mc (in my case a later miscarriage). Also I have actually had someone mention to my face "that maybe I was not supposed to have my own child" (while she merrily sat there with three under the age of 10) . She was actually of course referring to some sort of "survival of the fittest" idea whereby those of us who supposedly have "duff" gametes should just accept that "in the wild" we would have been the one who did not reporduce!!!! To that i say, well "in the wild" an animal with injury is not tearted, so maybe we should just stop doing any sort of interventionist treatment since "in the wild" they would just perish anyway! Survival of the fittest and all that![/color]



DDinCA said:


> 3 - I had a woman ask me, with a note of disbelief, if I really would claim that all women have the "right" to have children and that their insurance should pay for that.


DDinCa, did this woman perchance have children?!  I am willing to guess she did. How wonderful to be so judgemental from that nice side of the fence!!

Bravo DDinCA for the points in number 3 of your post! - well put! I am one of the many women who did not "leave" our fertility languishing then suddenly decide to have a baby as so many in the outside world would assume - I was back and forth to my various doctors for more than 15 years, until I finally got a "diagnosis" by which time I was in my late 30s and fighting the system to get tests, funding for tx etc..... I hate to generalise but if I had smoked my lungs to tarry pulp, I would have got a whole barage of tx thrown at me, and nobody would have commented that I should just be left to languish and suffer - why is infertility considered any less harmful to the patient? My IF has driven me to the depths of depression, feelings of grief and thoughts of "ending it all" and everything in between. I have felt people's judgement, fielded their "invasive" questions, listened to their advice to adopt, and I feel generally been "a cautionary tale" for many (who even after knowing about my medical issues still ask me "did you ever consider having children earlier?". I have watched/listened to TV/radio programmes where people who have not been anywhere near a fertility clinic moralise about the ethics of any assisted conception let alone with donor gametes and frankly I want to ask all these people "who are we hurting?" "why do you want us to suffer more?" "why can't you just say "there by the grace of whatever God you believe in..." and leave us alone - we are rational, ethical, caring people who just want to fulfill our wish to have a family of our own through the means we choose - YOU have had that "right" given to you by the virtue of luck and circumstance - now let me have the same. Please

Good luck DDinCA with whatever you are doing right now or in the future 

Kittenxx


----------



## DDinCA (Feb 2, 2010)

Kitten -- thank you for your reply.  I hear so much pain in your post!  And believe me, I feel that pain, too!  In my own story, I started actively trying when I was in my early 30s, but even then had already met a host of doctors who had each, in their own ways, either made me feel like an idiot (pcos is a made-up condition), or scared me (you will never have kids unless you have help), or dismissed me (it's normal for some women to have xyz symptoms).  And these were all in my 20s!  Only one doctor took my concerns seriously, ran some tests, and gave me a diagnosis -- and the diagnosis was PCOS.  I was about 26 or 27 years old at  the time.  He was not a specialist, so didn't tell me everything I would come to know later, but he was kind and took me seriously and seemed competent.  It would be many years before I'd find another doctor like that!  So, yes, I'm 43 now, seeking donor gametes.  But I was 32 when I had a miscarriage and 35 when I had my first IVF.  Is 32 too old?  it was for someone like me, but how would I know that?  

But, even though I started early, through boards like this one I've come to realize that there are so many women who long to give birth and be mothers and feel whole -- some are single, some are gay, some are cancer survivors, some are late bloomers, and on and on...many have felt victimized by adoption systems and foster systems...some might be happy with adoption, but there partners wouldn't be.  It's all so complex!  And yes, most people making definitive statements have not walked a mile in my shoes.  And some moms view themselves as somehow superior -- like they won the baby sweepstakes.  Others make pious statements about God's will.  Others suggest that I have students, and they are my "kids."  I'm sure you've had a zillion people to just "relax" it will happen -- "stop stressing" and you'll get pregnant -- like their friend of a friend who applied to adopt, and once the adoption went through, BOOM! they were pregnant!

And for my Christian friends, I say that yes, God's will is sovereign, but we live in a fallen world in which things are NOT as they should be -- the child with cancer, the young couple murdered, the office workers in a terrorist bomb, the new father on an airplane -- whatever -- none of these are things that we would just stand by and watch and shrug and say, well, that's God will!  I refuse to believe that God gave my mother cancer.  But, we do make choices.  I made choices when I was younger, and I live in a world in which other people make choices.  Many of those choices lead to problems in my environment which over time have compromised my system in a particular way.  For me, this results in PCOS and fertility issues.  For another, it may be a brain tumor.  So, like you, Kitten, I would say to them -- do you think we should just let God or the law of the jungle take over?  No.  If a man has a heart attack, we give him open heart surgery or new valves or a pacemaker or whatever.  So why not give a woman basic healthcare to prevent total infertility?  And if people can donate organs and blood and tissues -- why not gametes?  Okay -- I'm not sure that argument's on the same kind of ground, but I want it to be.

Thanks again for this thread.  I appreciate the opportunity to listen to others, and to speak my mind (however limited my audience!).  Maybe it's all building up inside me because I don't feel like I can speak in any other forum...


----------



## bangles (Nov 4, 2009)

Fascinating reading folks.  Just wanted to flag up my own personal bugbear - when they say women using donor gametes are 'selfish' in their decision to have a baby.  You show me the woman who says 'I'm not having a baby because I want one for myself, but I've realised that for the baby's sake, I must have one'.  Of course any decision to have a baby is selfish, because the imagined baby isn't begging to be born.  The parents can only ever take their own wants and desires into account.  Millions of women bring children into the world with little means to provide a decent upbringing for them - they bring them into a world of poverty, dirt and despair (often of course because they have no choice in the matter) but how so then is a woman using donor gametes, who knows that she can offer a secure, loving home to her child any more 'selfish' than these people, especially if they have deliberately chosen to have a child knowing their circumstances?  If it is regrettable that a child has no access to one or both of its genetic parents, surely it is a hundred times more regrettable that a child is malnourished, exposed to violence in the home, poorly educated, living in sub-standard housing etc.  There are so many other things to worry about in this world, that need putting right, why are people wasting their breath and wringing their hands on this issue?  It is merely their way of trying to exert control over the fertility of others, which is, and always has been, a political and moral minefield.  The 'God' argument is such a red herring too.  If God wanted some of us to be infertile, why did he make de ivf possible - if we were meant to just accept it and adopt children, he wouldn't make it work would he?  Then they start to tell us it is a test - oh it's all so limp.  Anyway - things to do - Bangles x


----------

