# Article about donor conceived adults



## olivia m (Jun 24, 2004)

Have a look at this article in today's Times Parents section on donor conceived adults
http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/families/article3041127.ece

Olivia

/links


----------



## Lorna (Apr 8, 2004)

I have met my donor, swapped stories, taken photos, arranged for my kids to meet her when we they are older, and so on. In the US, many egg donors(mine included) will *not* donate unless they can meet the recipient first. A UK group, called "Sperm Donor Conception" network, wants that same kind of openness, for men. But this kind of meeting between donor, and recipient is banned in the UK. Why? I don't know, as they have found in the USA, how great it is for most people.

This kind of contact between the donor, and the recipient, makes it so much easier for the parents of donor conceived children, to be open with everyone, about their child's origins. And from the responses I have had to posts I have done on infertility boards, I feel, many would-be-parents, would welcome a chance to find out more about the donor, *before* creating a child.

But, unfortunately, this kind of openness is inconvenient for doctors working in the field of infertility. Doctors deal with the potential child. By 12 weeks, the doctor is no longer part of that potential child's life.
Doctors know that, if donors, and recipients are allowed to meet, the clinic will have to handle the messy emotions, that inevitably happen, when two strangers lives become entwined. It is much simpler for medics to demand anonymous donation, and get governments to pass laws that enforce secrecy. The clinics just want the "easy" bit of creating the child. It's not their responsibility for what that child becomes. That is the parents.

Humm! Yes and No.

I feel that it is important, for the donor conceived child, to have access to information about their past. And it is staff within clinics, that prevent the parents, finding out as much as they possibly can about the donor. And it is doctors who are blocking the flow of information. So when doctors say they are not responsible for any problems a donor conceived adult might have, I don't think they are being entirely honest.

So when Marquardt writes:
> What troubles me is that children today are being raised in an era of increasingly 
> flexible definitions of parenthood, 
>>>>>>definitions that often serve the interests of adults without regard for children.
I feel, that when it comes to donation, the children are being brought up according to the doctors wishes, over what the parents would like, and the needs of the children. And, IMO, it is doctors who insist on anonymous donation (Not the time to change policy on donor anonymity http://www.fertilityfriends.co.uk/ ). If doctors, respected members of society, demand that the donor be hidden, and imply that the donor isn't really that important, they only supplied one cell after all. Is it any wonder that in a society, where most people don't read past the headlines, and if they do, they rarely analyse and discuss a news story, that we end up with a child 
> wearing the shirt is basically being told that his dad is not important 
> and is just a donor.
I don't.

I also feel, that if in 1990, we had allowed adults to make their own decisions about what type of donation they wanted, we wouldn't be in the situation we are in now. Back in 1990, most people would have followed the advice of doctors who advocate anonymity. But a few brave souls, would have opted for a more open form of donation.
In time, more people would have found out about the benefits of open donation, and we might not now, be demanding a mark on the birth certificate, indicating a donor conceived child, in order to force parents to be more open with their children.

Back in 1990, Margaret Thatcher, had spent 10 years, forcing us to abandon restrictive practices, open up our markets, and she made the UK, compete in the global economy. She preached, competition, freedom for adults to make their own decisions, and so on. But in 1990 the HFEA Act became law. This Act outlawed free market practices, and insisted that that the HFEA committee, must create a set of rules, that all infertility clinics must follow. And it has some terrible penalties, for people who didn't obey the rules.
The HFEA Act, ignored all the research done in the US, about what worked and what didn't, and as result, anonymous donation was forced by law, on both and donors, and recipients. You weren't allowed to chose open donation, even though it often proves to be a very good choice for donors, recipients, and any children created!
Crazy!

As Montuschi says
>>> She and her husband conceived their two children using donor sperm in the 
>mid-Eighties and were in the vanguard of parents who decided to be open with 
> their children, despite the advice being given by the medical profession.
It's not the parents, who are against their children knowing; its others- like doctors.

Ok, there will be some parents, who won't want to tell their kids, and I think we should respect their decision. I can think of some very good reasons, why a parent would not want to tell a child. IMO, anyone, who can't imagine a situation where it would be better to keep quiet about a child's biological origins, haven't met some of my relatives!

Anyway, how many rules/laws, are obeyed 100% of the time, by 100% of the population. I can't think of one. And I think, it is unrealistic, to expect 100% of parents, to tell their donor conceived children about their biological origins. But I do think we can make it a whole lot easier for parents who do want to tell. We can provide so much more information about the donor to the children created through donation, if only we had more open system.

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.

Susannah Merricks shows us that it is important for children to be told young about their past. But I also think, they should be given as much information as they want, when they want. Something that is impossible in the UK. The free market in the USA, allows unrelated donors and recipients to meet, and find out about each other, *before* treatment commences. And donor and recipient can talk about allowing the children to meet their biological "other half". It even allows donors, to be honorary aunties or uncles to the donor conceived children, if the recipient wants them to be. How much more open can you get with children?

If we look at any other aspect of families, and I use that in the broadest sense, we insist that the biological parent/step parent, is allowed to maintain contact with their offspring. Parents are allowed visitation rights. If you adopt an older child, social services may well insist that the child(ren) is/are allowed to see their parent(s), at intervals during the year. And in the USA, I believe some places, insist that those who adopt a child, even a baby, must maintain some form of communication, with the biological parent(s). In surrogacy, even in host/gestational surrogacy, where the surrogate has no genetic link to the child(ren), the intended parents are encouraged to maintain contact with the surrogate. But when it comes to donation, any contact between the donor, and recipient is banned. If in every context, maintaining contact is considered a good thing, why when it comes to donation, do we insist on separating the donor, and recipient?

It feels like in the UK, we blame the parents for not telling their donor conceived children, about their biological origins. And to force parents into telling, some bright spark decides to introduce a law that puts a mark on the birth certificate, that indicates, that the child was conceived by donation.
But, IMO, I don't think it is the parents who caused this situation. I feel that 
doctors - the BMA for one, 
the politicians who enacted the laws, 
the HFEA for not reading the peer reviewed research on this subject and so failing to introduce sensible donation rules, 
perhaps even the Donor Conception Network, for failing to lobby for completely open donation, 
are far more responsible for the situation, than parents are. But is easy to blame parents, for not being open, when in fact the "system" itself, is so secretive.

If donors and recipients had been left alone to organise the kind of donation they wanted, yes some would have opted for anonymous donation, but I believe; some, and an increasing number by now, would have opted for more openness.

Lets stop meddling in donors, and recipients lives, and start letting adults make their own decisions, about what is best for their children.

Lorna


----------

