New at Reason

Julian Sanchez | January 23, 2006

Who's your daddy? Kerry Howley makes the case that it's not the sperm bank's responsibility to tell you.

Comments

|1.23.06 @ 4:14PM|#

My ex-wife was a egg donor many times over. She was the kind of woman who would get pregnant if you just looked at her the wrong way. Her reproductive capabilities were practically a superpower. To me, it seemed like such a shame that responsible, well-adjusted, committed couples were struggling to have children when this Appalachian tart was practically giving them away.
In around ten years I expect to see an influx of teenagers who look "strangely familiar".

|1.23.06 @ 4:39PM|#

Should anonymous sperm or egg donation be a crime?

That depends a lot on where you leave it.

|1.23.06 @ 5:00PM|#

As an adult adoptee, I naturally have a different take on this issue. Fortunately, the internet solved the problem of "privacy" laws which were nothing but a hinderance for both my biological mother and myself. I suppose there is a difference between adoption and "genetic donation", but to the child, there is always that need to know where he came from.

|1.23.06 @ 5:03PM|#

but to the child, there is always that need to know where he came from.

But if the right to know where he came from were enshrined in law, that child might not ever have been conceived.

|1.23.06 @ 5:15PM|#

But if the right to know where he came from were enshrined in law, that child might not ever have been conceived.

In case of egg and sperm donation, you are exactly correct. I just happen to think it is cruel beyond belief (purely because of my own personal experience) to deny the child the right to know. It's like condemning a child to grow up with a huge hole inside of him that can never be filled.

|1.23.06 @ 5:36PM|#

The real problem here isn't so much anonymity per se as it is child support obligations, which have strict liability and are retroactive. It is unlikely that any egg donor would be hit up for child support, as the political fallout would be enormous, but sperm donors don't enjoy such clout. No law protects a sperm donor from a paternity suit, so any attempt to strip donation of anonymity guarantees there will be one, and the law says the plaintiff will win. When that day comes, rates of sperm donation will drop precipitously. This effect can already be seen in the UK, where similar anti-anonymity laws have already been passed.

|1.23.06 @ 5:43PM|#

Well, obviously, if you're the father of the child, you are responsible for it, even if you never had sex with the mother, never met the mother, and donated your sperm with the understanding you would in no way be regarded as the father or held responsible...

Callous, irresponsible men.

|1.23.06 @ 5:51PM|#

Eric-

FWIW, although I argued in favor of holding biological fathers responsible in a previous thread, I would make an exception here: If the sperm donors make donation contingent on not being held responsible, and if the recipients sign an agreement to not hold the donor responsible, then all parties involved have agreed on how to assign responsibility.

My stance in that other thread was in regard to the default assumption. I'd be totally cool with exempting the biological father from responsibility if both consenting sexual partners signed a waiver.

Come to think of it, Dave Chapelle did a skit about signing waivers before sex. It had clauses for a variety of sexual favors, consent forms to avoid possible assault charges later, and even a non-disclosure agreement to avoid embarrassments.

|1.23.06 @ 5:56PM|#

Come to think about it, everything that we argued about in the previous thread could be rendered moot if sexual partners signed waivers and courts agreed to recognize them.

That last part, alas, is the catch. People sign all sorts of waivers every day yet file all sorts of lawsuits nonetheless.

Plus, it would kind of ruin the mood. Two people are making out, ready to go to the next step, and then one person or the other says "Excuse me, just a moment. Would you mind signing this waiver? No, go ahead, take your time reading it. You can run it by your lawyer if you like. Oh, he's not available at this hour? Well, how about this: You take it to your lawyer tomorrow, and we meet up tomorrow night for dinner and take it from there? OK, see you tomorrow."

wingnutx|1.23.06 @ 5:56PM|#

As an adult adoptee, I naturally have a different take on this issue.

As an adult adoptee, I don't think either party has a right to know the identity of their gene-sharer. If it's a mutual wish then that's great, but if one party wishes to remain anonymous then the other has no right to invade their privacy.

Most adoption agencies will be happy to hook you up if both parties consent. No wa in hell should they divulge the information if only one party wishes it.

|1.23.06 @ 5:58PM|#

"and if the recipients sign an agreement to not hold the donor responsible, then all parties involved have agreed on how to assign responsibility."

Not that I disagree with your main point, but "all parties involved" have *not* agreed on anything... unless you think the resultant child isn't involved.

BTW, this Google spell-checker thing is cool... I can quickly spell-check just about anywhere.

|1.23.06 @ 6:57PM|#

thoreau, you're quite the romantic

you'd need to have certified breathlyzer readings on each signatory to ensure that both parties are in a mental state capable of signing a legal contract, not to mention a blood sample to ensure no non-alcoholic intoxicants were involved

oh, hell, what we REALLY need is a huge regulatory agency to oversee all sexual liaisons

Gimme Back My Dog|1.23.06 @ 7:00PM|#

Dr. T,

So you think that people who have sex and are doing everything in their power to not have a baby should be responsible for the baby, but people that give away sperm with the intent of creating a baby should not be responsible?

|1.23.06 @ 8:15PM|#

"...people that give away sperm with the intent of creating a baby should not be responsible?"

Er, such a person is in the same position as someone who gives up a child for adoption. He gives up parental responsibilities and rghts because there are other people ready and willing to take them over. Not the same situation at all.

|1.23.06 @ 10:12PM|#

MJ-

Exactly. The sperm donor would indeed be responsible for his kid, except for the fact that he has entered into an agreement that a suitable proxy will be found.

Andy D.-

Fair enough, I did phrase that poorly. I would agree that the child is involved, but the father has signed an agreement that somebody else will take over his duties. There's a difference between abandoning your responsibilities and delegating them.

|1.23.06 @ 11:34PM|#

I'd just like to throw my two cents in here:

I've never met my biological father; Hell, i've never even seen a picture of him. I can't say i've been adversely affected by the situation.

Not to denigrate anyone else's pain and suffering, but i don't buy into the idea that not knowing your genetic parentage forces you to grow up "missing something".

I don't know the exact circumstances of my mother and father falling out, and I don't particularly care. I certainly don't hold his absense against him; he's just one of many people in the world i haven't met. If my biological father were to try to get in contact with me i'd be happy to meet him, but my first question would be "So what is the average lifespan in your family, and are there any genetic conditions i should be aware of?"

So, speaking as one who's never known how and by whom he was sired, paternal anonymity does not have to be a terrible experience for the child. It's all a matter of how it is approached and how one wants to deal with it.

|1.24.06 @ 2:24AM|#

Come to think of it, Dave Chapelle did a skit about signing waivers before sex

Eh, let's just admit that the only safe course is to keep one's Precious Bodily Fluids to oneself. It's working for me, this week!

|1.24.06 @ 2:24AM|#

Come to think of it, Dave Chapelle did a skit about signing waivers before sex

Eh, let's just admit that the only safe course is to keep one's Precious Bodily Fluids to oneself. It's working for me, this week!

|1.24.06 @ 9:26AM|#

BrianTerrel,

Comparing your situation of coming from a broken home to that of someone who never was able to know EITHER parent is pretty stupid.

|1.24.06 @ 9:33AM|#

A woman who is donating eggs is being paid for **more** than just her "time." She has to undergo a painful series of injections to push her ovaries into a hyper-ovulatory state to maximize the egg harvest. Then she has to undergo serial vaginal-probe ultrasound to identify when the eggs are ready for harvest. Then she has to undergo laparoscopic surgery to harvest the eggs. Laparoscopic surgery is fairly safe, but does pose risks of hemorrhage, infection, permanent damage to internal organs as well as the risks of general anesthesia. To maintain that such women should not be compensated, and compensated damn well, for assuming these risks is absurd.

|1.24.06 @ 11:23AM|#

I think general anesthesia is significantly less common for egg retrieval than the alternatives of intravenous sedation or local anesthesia. The eggs are retrieved by a needle that pierces the vaginal wall and goes into the ovary. Typically, I believe, a laparoscope isn't used. Instead ultrasound is used to guide the needle to the center of the follicle. I'm under the impression that the greatest risk to an egg donor comes from the possibility of complications due to ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome, associated with the fertility drugs the donor uses.

My knowledge of the above is due primarily to reading and secondarily through what I've been told by doctors and my wife. My wife and I have been through five in-vitro attempts, one of which used donor eggs. I was with my wife during prep for all retrievals and transfers, but was asked to leave for each of the procedures.

The daily injections my wife required were indeed painful, especially the first time around, but that was primarily due to the progesterone shots, which, if I understand correctly, are not required of the donor. The other shots were small needles that she could administer herself. Progesterone, on the other hand, is delivered in peanut or sesame oil which requires big needles and someone else (in our case, me) has to push so hard on the plunger that his thumb will hurt afterward.

I agree with David that it's absurd to think that donors shouldn't be paid to donate, but I think his description overstates the pain and risk.

wingnutx|1.24.06 @ 1:49PM|#

I've never met my biological father; Hell, i've never even seen a picture of him. I can't say i've been adversely affected by the situation.



I've never met either of my gene donors. I have no idea why this sort of thing bothers some people.

|1.24.06 @ 3:25PM|#

"what we REALLY need is a huge regulatory agency to oversee all sexual liaisons"

Inspired by the most logical race in the galaxy, the Vulcans, breeding will be permitted once every seven years. For many of you this will mean much less breeding, for me, much much more.

Larry A|1.24.06 @ 5:15PM|#

I just keep wondering how many of the "open records" advocates actually want to destroy IVF as an alternative and "crush the industry."