7 ms·

On the flip side of the coin, I was recently considering donating sperm anonymously and now I won't, unless there's some kind of legal protection against this.

by heh 7y ago

On the flip side of the coin, I was recently considering donating sperm anonymously and now I won't, unless there's some kind of legal protection against this. I (and my wife) do not want to have our own children, but would be happy to help a random couple conceive, if this is something that would bring them joy. I wouldn't want my (and my family's) privacy and anonymity compromised however.

robhunter 7y ago
I think this is a very positive outcome for all involved. It seems like you would not be open to contact with your hypothetical offspring. I can't tell you how many adults I've met that have attempted to reach out to their genetic parents/donors and been met with a similar response. It's incredibly devastating for these people. I got very lucky. No one should be helping creating life if they are not open to at least basic contact with the human beings they have created.
- lintroller 7y ago
  > No one should be helping creating life if they are not open to at least basic contact with the human beings they have created. The system is anonymous exactly because people like the one you're replying to are willing to help provide the biological material and nothing more. Requiring communication with a person that, beyond DNA, is a complete wildcard seems like a steep barrier to donation that would significantly decline overall donations.
  - robhunter 7y ago
    That's my point - providing the biological material and nothing more is inherently unethical. I would encourage you to look at some of the research - 70%+ of "anonymous" sperm donors are actually open to contact with their genetic offspring. Optimizing for the health and welfare of intended parents while ignoring the well-being of the actual human beings that are created is incredibly short-sighted. A decrease in the overall amount of donations is a significantly smaller problem than the pain and risk created by anonymous donations (that are, as I've said, no longer anonymous because of the existence of these websites).
    - gknoy 7y ago
      > providing the biological material and nothing more is inherently unethical. Why is it inherently unethical? Donors are willing to provide a good/service, and part of the price is sometimes their anonymity. (I am sure many don't mind either way.) I'm not sure that anonymous donation is _possible_ anymore, given DNA testing, but even if it were, I don't see how being willing to donate is unethical if one wanted to stay anonymous.
      - robhunter 7y ago
        Article 7 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of a Child asserts that everyone has a right to know their genetic origin. Intentionally depriving someone of that right through anonymous donation is unethical. On a broader level, I believe that taking an action that causes no harm to oneself but causes harm upon another person is unethical. Wanting to stay anonymous has a harmful effect on the actual human beings being created here - I can cite research and/or hundreds of anecdotal conversations and relationships I have had with real-life people conceived this way.
        gjs278 7y ago
        yawn. and pray tell, what is the UN going to do about it?
        logifail 7y ago
        > Article 7 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of a Child asserts that everyone has a right to know their genetic origin. Source, please, since that's not what it says at https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/crc.aspx https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/crc.aspx
        robhunter 7y ago
        "the right to know and be cared for by his or her parents."
  - tathougies 7y ago
    Scientific studies show that creating a child with your genetic material while systematically denying them any chance to meet you results in poorer outcomes. Children from anonymous donation are at higher risk for drugs, depression, crime, etc.
- jhomedall 7y ago
  The only thing that is going to accomplish is severely restricting the number of people who are willing to donate sperm - likely to an extent that couples who are unable to conceive will not have any options available to them
  - robhunter 7y ago
    Thank goodness for that. People who donate sperm but are unwilling to have any contact with the human beings they create should not be donating sperm.
- heh 7y ago
  I see this has sparked a decent amount of discussion, and that's always good. However, you've made an assumption that is, at least partially, incorrect. I would not mind meeting potential offspring, for a short contact later in life personally, but I'd want no part in upbringing or any other negative legal implications- like claims to my estate, which should go to the people I've laid out in my will. This is why, for example, many people who do donate choose to do so anonymously. We (being my wife and I) just don't think we'd make good parents because we don't like children, and children should be raised in loving households by parents who want them, and who are willing to dedicate a portion of their lives to raising children. Adoption is also an option, but also, quite often, very difficult. So I don't judge people who go with sperm or egg donation instead. I see nothing morally wrong with helping a couple that are struggling with infertility to bring a child into the world, with the hope that it would be a kind and loving home. (And one would assume that a couple that has to go to the lengths of tissue donation for fertility, would do so) However we're also both privacy conscious, and care about the privacy of our extended family members. A child raised in another environment may not be, and as stated in the article (and as we've seen in other recent articles about FamilyTreeDNA etc.) This would compromise the privacy of our entire family. Hell, the child's (non/semi bio) parents could do this at birth. Some kind of restriction on testing on this case seems to me like an reasonable middle ground. Sorry for lack of citations re: other articles, am on mobile, however articles about the topic are easy to find with a web search.
  - robhunter 7y ago
    Claiming that people donate anonymously because they are concerned about claims to their estate is, IMO, pretty ridiculous. There have been millions of sperm donations done through fertility clinics and not one documented case of any offspring laying claim to an estate. You claim restriction on testing seems reasonable - restrictions for whom? For the offspring? As another person pointed out, they have no agency in this. They did not sign a contract promising anonymity. They should have every right to seek out their genetic origins. For your 3rd cousins who you've never met? If even one of your distant relatives has tested on one of these sites, it's incredibly easy for an offspring to track you down and figure out who you are. How would you suggest restricting or preventing that? Whose usage would you restrict?
- swordsmith 7y ago
  I read stories about adults trying to find their biological parents all the time and think why do they want to do such a thing? What are they hoping to gain -- by becoming close with their biological parents who possibly have knowingly abandoned them, they also risk alienating and hurting their adoptive parents. Sounds pretty selfish to me.

by heh 7y ago

robhunter 7y ago

I think this is a very positive outcome for all involved. It seems like you would not be open to contact with your hypothetical offspring. I can't tell you how many adults I've met that have attempted to reach out to their genetic parents/donors and been met with a similar response. It's incredibly devastating for these people. I got very lucky. No one should be helping creating life if they are not open to at least basic contact with the human beings they have created.

lintroller 7y ago
> No one should be helping creating life if they are not open to at least basic contact with the human beings they have created. The system is anonymous exactly because people like the one you're replying to are willing to help provide the biological material and nothing more. Requiring communication with a person that, beyond DNA, is a complete wildcard seems like a steep barrier to donation that would significantly decline overall donations.
- robhunter 7y ago
  That's my point - providing the biological material and nothing more is inherently unethical. I would encourage you to look at some of the research - 70%+ of "anonymous" sperm donors are actually open to contact with their genetic offspring. Optimizing for the health and welfare of intended parents while ignoring the well-being of the actual human beings that are created is incredibly short-sighted. A decrease in the overall amount of donations is a significantly smaller problem than the pain and risk created by anonymous donations (that are, as I've said, no longer anonymous because of the existence of these websites).
  - gknoy 7y ago
    > providing the biological material and nothing more is inherently unethical. Why is it inherently unethical? Donors are willing to provide a good/service, and part of the price is sometimes their anonymity. (I am sure many don't mind either way.) I'm not sure that anonymous donation is _possible_ anymore, given DNA testing, but even if it were, I don't see how being willing to donate is unethical if one wanted to stay anonymous.
    - robhunter 7y ago
      Article 7 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of a Child asserts that everyone has a right to know their genetic origin. Intentionally depriving someone of that right through anonymous donation is unethical. On a broader level, I believe that taking an action that causes no harm to oneself but causes harm upon another person is unethical. Wanting to stay anonymous has a harmful effect on the actual human beings being created here - I can cite research and/or hundreds of anecdotal conversations and relationships I have had with real-life people conceived this way.
      - gjs278 7y ago
        yawn. and pray tell, what is the UN going to do about it?
      - logifail 7y ago
        > Article 7 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of a Child asserts that everyone has a right to know their genetic origin. Source, please, since that's not what it says at https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/crc.aspx https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/crc.aspx
        robhunter 7y ago
        "the right to know and be cared for by his or her parents."
- tathougies 7y ago
  Scientific studies show that creating a child with your genetic material while systematically denying them any chance to meet you results in poorer outcomes. Children from anonymous donation are at higher risk for drugs, depression, crime, etc.
jhomedall 7y ago
The only thing that is going to accomplish is severely restricting the number of people who are willing to donate sperm - likely to an extent that couples who are unable to conceive will not have any options available to them
- robhunter 7y ago
  Thank goodness for that. People who donate sperm but are unwilling to have any contact with the human beings they create should not be donating sperm.
heh 7y ago
I see this has sparked a decent amount of discussion, and that's always good. However, you've made an assumption that is, at least partially, incorrect. I would not mind meeting potential offspring, for a short contact later in life personally, but I'd want no part in upbringing or any other negative legal implications- like claims to my estate, which should go to the people I've laid out in my will. This is why, for example, many people who do donate choose to do so anonymously. We (being my wife and I) just don't think we'd make good parents because we don't like children, and children should be raised in loving households by parents who want them, and who are willing to dedicate a portion of their lives to raising children. Adoption is also an option, but also, quite often, very difficult. So I don't judge people who go with sperm or egg donation instead. I see nothing morally wrong with helping a couple that are struggling with infertility to bring a child into the world, with the hope that it would be a kind and loving home. (And one would assume that a couple that has to go to the lengths of tissue donation for fertility, would do so) However we're also both privacy conscious, and care about the privacy of our extended family members. A child raised in another environment may not be, and as stated in the article (and as we've seen in other recent articles about FamilyTreeDNA etc.) This would compromise the privacy of our entire family. Hell, the child's (non/semi bio) parents could do this at birth. Some kind of restriction on testing on this case seems to me like an reasonable middle ground. Sorry for lack of citations re: other articles, am on mobile, however articles about the topic are easy to find with a web search.
- robhunter 7y ago
  Claiming that people donate anonymously because they are concerned about claims to their estate is, IMO, pretty ridiculous. There have been millions of sperm donations done through fertility clinics and not one documented case of any offspring laying claim to an estate. You claim restriction on testing seems reasonable - restrictions for whom? For the offspring? As another person pointed out, they have no agency in this. They did not sign a contract promising anonymity. They should have every right to seek out their genetic origins. For your 3rd cousins who you've never met? If even one of your distant relatives has tested on one of these sites, it's incredibly easy for an offspring to track you down and figure out who you are. How would you suggest restricting or preventing that? Whose usage would you restrict?
swordsmith 7y ago
I read stories about adults trying to find their biological parents all the time and think why do they want to do such a thing? What are they hoping to gain -- by becoming close with their biological parents who possibly have knowingly abandoned them, they also risk alienating and hurting their adoptive parents. Sounds pretty selfish to me.