# Parted-at-birth twins 'married'



## Lorna (Apr 8, 2004)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7182817.stm

But as some one Channel 4 news just said, anonymous donation/secrecy surrounding donation mean there is a possibility, albeit a slim one that that half sister/brother donor conceived children, could meet and marry. More open donation needed? Maybe?

/links


----------



## **Tashja** (Jan 13, 2005)

Just seen this on the news.  

It looks like they want Biological parents (i.e. the donor) to appear on the Birth Certificate and for it to be law thatthe parents should tell the child they are a donor child. 

What are they going to do about 1 night stands (does happen !!)

Can't see how this is going to work ??

T xx


----------



## Lorna (Apr 8, 2004)

Tashja,

your right, it's back in the house of Lords,
http://www.ivf.net/ivf/index.php?page=out&id=3142

I though this one had been quietly buried 

How does the government fix a broken system? Introduce more silly rules.

IMO, you fix a broken system, by going back to first principles, and allow parents to decide what is best for their children. Sure in some cases they will get it wrong, but in the overwhelming majority of cases they will do the right thing. I think, this proposal, makes most parents get it wrong, most of the time.

If you treat people like adults, and allow them to make their own decisions, you will end up with better results more often, than if you impose, draconian rules from the top.

Won't the government ever learn? Probably not.

Lorna

/links


----------



## Spaykay (Nov 29, 2006)

I watched a report once (sorry for the very loose details!) that many children are actually not the fruit of their father as the mother had an affair....and it was quite a surprisingly high percentage! How will they solve that one then?

Kay xxx


----------



## Lorna (Apr 8, 2004)

I found a page on this 
http://www.childsupportanalysis.co.uk/analysis_and_opinion/choices_and_behaviours/misattributed_paternity.htm
Various studies have found 20-30% of father listed on the birth certificate are not in fact the biological father

The study you are referring to occurred in 1972, and was done by Elliot Elias Philipp in a town in SE england. 
The study was abandoned, because it was felt that a great deal of harm could be done, be revealing that 
the dad the child/children had grown up with / adored, was not in fact the biological father. Families lived 
in blissful ignorance.
The feeling the researchers got, was that, it could be as many as 50% of the children born were in fact, 
conceived by a man other than the one listed on their birth certificate.

Lorna

PS the older I have got, the more I feel honesty isn't always the best policy. Sometimes keeping 
silent, saves a lot of people a lot of pain. Just my experience of life.

/links


----------



## pabboo (Sep 29, 2007)

I heard this parted-at-birth twins story on radio four yesterday. Lord Alton, a former Liberal Democrat MP, raised the case during a House of Lords debate on the Human Fertility and Embryology Bill last month. He reckons it underlines the "need" for donor information to be put on donor-concieved children's birth certificates. His comments - and those of the presenter - were very insulting, including statements about how children have the right to know "their true identities".

As an aside, they also (in my, albeit biased opinion) demonstrated their ignorance of the issues throughout the piece only talking about sperm donors, and not mentioning egg donation.

Alton wants the law changed so that the birth certificates of children born from "donated sperm" would say that is how they were conceived and to identify the genetic father.

Alton said: "If you start trying to conceal someone's identity, sooner or later the truth will come out. And if you don't know you are biologically related to someone, you may become attracted to them and tragedies like this may occur." That is why he thinks that donor information should be on birth certificates.

I am sure this has been discussed long and hard on FF. But I am so incensed I felt I needed to put digits to keyboard.

  ​


----------



## Spaykay (Nov 29, 2006)

I just wonder how identifying on birth cerificates that you are from donors will help - do they think that they will go around asking everyone they date or (to put it inpolitely) PULL whether they are from donors and if they are give them a genetic test before copulating with them? It's a concern I've had that they may just meet a "brother/sister" in the future...but 1. it's not likely and 2. this idea is no solution to that. Sorry to continue an ever reoccuring argument!

Kay xxx


----------



## Lorna (Apr 8, 2004)

The question I want to ask, is 
When did the rights of the child become so important that the rights of the parents come second? I am not suggesting a return to Victorian England, but I do feel that I'm the parent, I make the rules. Get over it.
I have told my kids, but if I chose not to, that should be my right as well.

So I clicked on some of the links of the page above. I have changed the link to get it to work now. Whoops! And got "The Knowledge is Bliss Page"
http://www.childsupportanalysis.co.uk/papers/knowledge/app_a.htm
Also called A right to parentage knowledge", but as this is written by the Child Support Agency, I kinda feel they have an ulterior motive.
On that page it argues through all the Human Rights law, United Nations conventions and so on, that a child has the absolute right to know their parental origin.

Considering all this weight of rules, and laws, how can any body(BMA), government, etc., possibly support anonymous donation? To say there is an inconsistency between, this suggestion of a mark on the birth certificate, and the way we do donation, is to put it mildly.

And considering Human Rights law, United Nations conventions, how any other European country can possibly insist on anonymous donation is beyond me.

Lorna

PS I do think the donor and recipient should have the right chose how they do they do donation, anonymously, completely openly, or anything between.

/links


----------



## Ann_P (Aug 24, 2007)

If you knew you were adopted, and met someone else who was also adopted, and then you discovered you actually had the exact same birthday....wouldn't you wonder?? 

If that was me I'd have been a bit concerned very early on and maybe would have done a little research!

However, if, (on top of the unbelievable co-incidence that they even met, let alone fell in love) they also had both been lied to about their circumstances and birthdays....well that really is incredible!!!

Frankly, I wonder if they did know?? 

I know of 2 cousins who were dating (living together in fact), their family fell out over it, but they wanted to be together and just carried on. Most people (who didn't know their history) were kept in the dark about it.


----------



## Wicklow (May 13, 2006)

My boys are both from donor sperm and it was before the new rules came in so we will never know who the donor is. There is a chance they could have some half siblings out there but like so many people have said, a lot of children never REALLY know their true biological fathers! I plan to be honest with the boys, but dont really know what I can do to stop this sort of thing happening.


----------



## wisbabe (Jun 29, 2004)

I read at the w/e that there is a query over whether this is a true story or not - or in fact whether it was fabricated to help along the legal process.


----------



## LiziBee (Aug 24, 2004)

Have a look at this http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,2240874,00.html

First Lord Alton says he heard about it from the Judge who ruled on the case, then he admits it might have been only someone who was 'familiar' with the case. Then it turns out there's no case such as this on record. Not surprising really as the advice on adopting twins has been the same for at least the last 40 years - keep them together!!
IMO it's just another example of 
a) how an urban myth can become acepted by the public as a reality, and 
b) just what depths the 'pro-donor on the birth certificate' lobby will go to

again I say to those people "putting this on my child birth certificate will not heal your pain"!

If you feel strongly about what Lord Alton is trying to do write to him!
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/peer/lord_alton_of_liverpool
These people will pass your message on.

Lizi.x

/links


----------



## olivia m (Jun 24, 2004)

Well said LiziBee..and many congrats on your pregnancy by the way.

The whole issue of birth certificates is coming up again in the Lords on Monday 21st January. A well informed source tells me that Lord Alton will almost certainly be putting down an amendment - possibly for something even more radical than was proposed at the Committee Stage. DC Network has also been briefing peers and they should be well armed to counter Alton's proposals. You can see/hear the debate on-line following the House of Lords section from this link 
http://www.parliament.uk/
If you feel you have further ammunition to offer try emailing Lord Howe, Lord Jenkin and Baronness Barker. They are all receptive to arguments that put the interests of children first without annotation of birth certificates.
Best
Olivia

/links


----------



## bottleofwater (Jun 19, 2007)

Yes indeed it seems it was a total fabrication, how nice of Lord Alton to use some urban myth in order to seal the fate of future families regardless if it causes unecessary trauma particularly for the children. How are we to trust people who make these rules when there idea of an argument is quite possibly a lie.


----------



## brownowl23 (Jan 3, 2006)

Does the government really not think about the effect on the children that having the fact that they are donor concieved on thier birth cretificate will have on them. After all how many people get to see our birth certificates in our lives? 

We have to send them off for Passports, child benefit claims, marriage licences etc. Why should the civil servants who handle our birth certificates at these times have the right to know that we may be a result of donor conception. 

I think that it is up to the parents of donor concieved children how they handle the subject. My boys will be brought up with the knowledge that they are donor concieved. They will have a lovely memory book each of the trip to South Africa we made to concieve them, along with memories of them growing up. It will never be a surprise for them.

Let the parents of donor conceived children have the right to decide to tell or not to tell. It them after all that have to deal with the repurcussions of having a donor conceived child when ever and however they tell them about how they were concieved. 

Annotating a birth certificate like this is branding them for life as being different, but it is no diferent to a woman having a one night stand and they wont be branded. 

Chris


----------



## olivia m (Jun 24, 2004)

Just for information, it is donor conceived adults who are behind the push to annotate birth certificates.  They don't seem to mind that others will see the information, they just want to make sure that parents 'tell'.
The Scrutiny Committee felt that donor conception was not like a one night stand in that the latter is making a personal decision and the former involves third parties, ie. a fertility clinic and the state apparatus of the law (HFE Act).  They felt that the state should not be complicit in a lie.
I say this as it is important to understand where people are coming from in order to be able to counter their arguments effectively.
Olivia


----------



## LiziBee (Aug 24, 2004)

olivia m said:


> They felt that the state should not be complicit in a lie.


A very good point and one worth keeping in mind.

To everybody here, expressing their opinions though I have one thing to say:
WRITE TO THESE PEERS. We have to make our voice heard, after all the 'pro' lobby are shouting at the top of their voices - we have to make our reasoned argument heard!!!

Lizi.xxx


----------



## Spaykay (Nov 29, 2006)

If it is donor adults that are FOR putting donor conception on the birth certifcate then they are obviously the opinions from people who KNOW they were donor conceived thus I am confused as A) They were told so it wouldn't have mattered if it were on the birth certificate or not as they'd've been informed anyway (so no need for the birth certificate info) or B) They found out later or by accident which must have been difficult and thus I understand why they feel the need for this. But, the opinions that will not be heard are from the donor conceived adults who do not know that they are donor conceived and after all it is them that is the reason for putting it on the birth certificate after all....so it's hard to see an over all opinion really. (Did that make sense?)

And also, at what age does a person 1st see or understand their birth certificate? Could this not mean they find out at a difficult stage or by accident?

I am all FOR letting the children know, but in my own way, and it's up to THEM who they tell. But then, I may be wrong, who knows?

Kay xxx


----------



## olivia m (Jun 24, 2004)

The DC adults who are pro annotation of birth certs all found out later in life (from late teenage years onwards) about their conception.  They claim to have been damaged by both the keeping of the secret and not being able to find out anything about their genetic relatives (some, but not all, believe that their donor is a 'real' parent).  
Olivia


----------



## Lorna (Apr 8, 2004)

Olivia,

I didn't see my birth certificate, until I was over 18, and I only saw it then, because I need to apply for a job, in the defence industry. I didn't "own" my birth certificate till I got married, and than was age 25, so I don't see how it changes anything.

Parents might still not tell, and you could end with a 20 year old finding out the hard way.

What are these law lords going to do about the fact that at least 20% of naturally conceived children, weren't conceived, by the father who is listed on the birth certificate. See my post in this topic - 12th Jan 2008

Compulsory DNA testing? Ok I forgot the NHS is broke, and can't afford to do useful things, let alone the stuff that mostly doesn't matter. There are literally millions of naturally conceived adults alive in Britain today, who think the man they call Dad is their biological father. 
For the overwhelming majority of adults, the fact that Dad isn't your biological Dad, and you don't know about it, isn't a problem.

For people like David Gollancz, it obviously is. Olivia M your post August 2007 http://www.fertilityfriends.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=106768.0

Why should David Gollancz be allowed to project his problems onto everyone else?

I do think children should be told, but in a much, much more open way than we do now. I know people think I am crazy, but I think we should encourage donors, and recipients to get together, *before* any baby is created, and work out what sort of relationship they want to have, anything from no further contact to the donor being part of the family. Much better I think. Although I doubt, if anyone like doctors, the HFEA, etc., would allow this, as it would create too much work for them
I can also think of some very good reasons why parents would not tell their child, and we should respect the right of parents to be just that parents, and accept some people will opt for anonymous. One rule fits all doesn't.

The powers that be, should stop running our lives, treat us like adults, and let us make our own decisions.

Lorna
PS I should have added, when it comes to naturally conceived children, study after study has found that at least 20% of all children, could not be the child of the man listed on the birth certificate. IMO this is equivalent to anonymous donation

And each study has concluded, that telling the child, could potentially destroy the family, and wreck that child's life. One parent - mum, decided not to tell, or else, simply didn't realise, and so didn't tell, and everyone lived happily ever after.

There are instances when *not* telling, does less harm than telling. Let the parent(s) decide.


----------



## Ann_P (Aug 24, 2007)

LiziBee said:


> First Lord Alton says he heard about it from the Judge who ruled on the case, then he admits it might have been only someone who was 'familiar' with the case. Then it turns out there's no case such as this on record. Not surprising really as the advice on adopting twins has been the same for at least the last 40 years - keep them together!!
> I


Why is this guy not hanging his head in shame? If you don't have confirmed facts and proper sources you CANNOT pass something off as fact. Until you know something for definate you are actually talking out of your bottom!

This 'gentleman' has been caught out trying to pass off an untruth as a fact he heard from the judge, has been caught *lying*, and still expects to be treated with respect and credibility. Why hasn't he crawled under a stone and disappeared out of pure embarrassment??!!

I have no thoughts on the issue in question, (haven't given it time). But I cannot believe the arrogance of this man!


----------

