[robhunter]

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]

> 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]

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]

> 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.

[tathougies]

Your family is not a good/service. You are not simply providing 'material', you are providing an entire legacy.

This is not just philosophical. Scientific studies show that children of anonymous donation are at higher risk of negative outcomes than other groups: https://slate.com/human-interest/2010/06/new-study-shows-spe...

The link with depression is especially troubling given that a history of family depression typically makes a man ineligible to be a sperm donor.

[ssivark]

Interesting discussion, even though some responses are emotionally charged, understandably :-)

IMHO, the key ethical question is, how can a person (the child in question) be made party to a contract in which they have no input?

Is it unreasonable to give them full/veto choice over the matter of contacting genetic parents -- because that is the only place in the story where they have any agency? Donors & receivers have full agency at the point of exchange.

Further, if one is willing to conceptually agree that a child might have needs/rights beyond what parents (either adoptive or biological) might be willing to provide for, then one is necessarily led to seek & consider data on possible harms (emotional or otherwise) to children who do not have the choice to contact their biological parents.

[robhunter]

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.

[kelnos]

> Article 7 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of a Child asserts that everyone has a right to know their genetic origin.

No, it doesn't. The child has a right to "know his or her parents". It does not specifically state "biological" parents. Parents are the people who raise you and are legally responsible for you.

> I believe that taking an action that causes no harm to oneself but causes harm upon another person is unethical.

I agree with that statement in general, but don't see how this applies. If someone donates sperm anonymously, that anonymity does not cause harm to any child conceived with that sperm. That child may later really want to know where their genes come from, but that's not harm. If the offspring feels some sort of anguish over this, that's a self-inflicted harm.

Having said all that, I would really prefer that couples with severe fertility issues would instead adopt. Arguably the planet is already overpopulated, and there are plenty of unwanted kids who need parents. But I'm also one of those people who doesn't understand how people feel the need that they must reproduce, so clearly I'm missing something that the mainstream believes.

[novok]

Adoption is a lot of work, money, time and vetting, especially if you don't want a child with physical issues, to look like the parents or to go international.

Fertility treatments can be paid by health insurance and there is no 'parent vetting' process to delay things. Often fertility issues are one sided, so at least the children will be half of the couple.

[robhunter]

> Parents are the people who raise you and are legally responsible for you.

That's your definition. It's not everyone's.

> If the offspring feels some sort of anguish over this, that's a self-inflicted harm.

So you're saying the feeling of anguish is self-inflicted? A rape victim who feels anguish is self-inflicting harm?

Clearly not.

[logifail]

> 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

[robhunter]

"the right to know and be cared for by his or her parents."

[danbolt]

I'm not in such a position, but if I wanted to learn about my ancestry and the source of my conception was reduced to someone else's anonymous transaction I think I'd be quite upset.

[tathougies]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

[heh]

> 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.

I didn't say people - I was only speaking for myself. I wouldn't want a contest to my will (which would cause hardship to my loved ones) from the result of an act of goodwill and charity. In the jurisdiction I'm at at least (Canada), it is illegal to receive compensation (with the exception of travel expenses) for sperm donation, so it really is an act of charity. Additionally, legislation regarding parental rights differs from province to province, so while people in, say, Ontario have protection against claims to their estate, if donations were made via clinics and sperm banks, this might not be the case in all provinces in Canada (I am in another province). The crown (or people) can and will contest wills that it deems unfair or unreasonable, and there is plenty of case law on this topic. as I mentioned, depending on the province, you could potentially end up with a pile of people with a potential claim to part of your estate, if the province defines children as genetic offspring and doesn't make the distinction between donation and not. I am not a lawyer, but as a potential donor, risk mitigation is something an anonymous donation helps with. A contest to the will, even if unsuccessful, would delay my loved ones getting their inheritance.

> 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.

As for my 3rd cousins, and even more distant relatives (some of whom I'm in closer contact with than my 1st cousins) the assumption I never met them is ridiculous. You don't know my familial situation, and considering my family went through the holocaust, where my family who didn't escape in time were slaughtered based on the fact that they were of the Jewish people, makes all of us wary of submitting samples to a database of genetic information held by third parties. And those of us who are left are all very close. This is especially scary with the current state of politics around the world.

> 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. > You claim restriction on testing seems reasonable - restrictions for whom? >How would you suggest restricting or preventing that? Whose usage would you restrict?

As for restrictions on the offspring and lack of agency in signing contracts, as far as I know, no-one in the world has agency over their own conception and birth, no matter where the source genetic material comes from. No one asks to be born. if we look at an anti-natalist perspective, you could go to the extreme and say that because we have to work to survive (unless you are born to an extremely wealthy family) that all childbirth is forcing slavery onto people. That is absurd, of course.

As people have pointed out elsewhere in the comment thread below, people have a right to know their parents, but not necessarily their genetic origins (and that is a separate distinction in the laws of many, but not all jurisdictions). Parents make decisions all the time before you have agency, medical and otherwise. Your parents decide on how to raise you, what to feed you, where you will go to school and what you will do until you have agency. These decisions they make for you carry over and affect your life, and there's very little you can do to change that.

So with regards to restrictions, I think that a reasonable solution would be along the lines of requiring companies like FamilyTreeDNA or 23andMe check with a database run by clinics if a person is a result of a donation, and if that donor consented to genetic testing, before any tests are processed. I also think we need limits on how, and to whom, companies like that can disclose information to. This shouldn't be impossible to implement, as sibling registries exist, even for anonymous donations in Canada. Additionally (and this isn't necessarily part a donor issue) there should be prohibitions on governments, corporations (i.e. advertising, pharma, and insurance companies), and law enforcement[1] having access to these databases. If you do opt in to having your genetic information used for research, you should, at the very least, have informed consent and receive compensation. This brings to mind the case of Henrietta Lacks, as well.

This never is a simple topic - for example, there are known cases of doctors using their own sperm instead of donor sperm, or the father's sperm [2]. This is horrible. There should be limits on how many children can be fathered by a single donor, and the geographic proximity of said donations as well. But ruling out protections for donors, who (depending where you are) may not be compensated for any kind of future risk, and are (if not compensated) doing a kind, charitable act to help couples who are struggling with infertility, is absurd. The realities of sperm donation, at least in Canada, aren't simple. You must be in good health. You must undergo blood screening. You take your own time and money to do this, and get at best, travel expenses back (and those are usually limited to $C70). On top of all of that, you cannot have sex or ejaculate for a couple of days between donations, and it's a 3-6 month process before you even start donating, and you are expected to be in the program for at least a year and maintain a healthy lifestyle.[3][4] You also have to disclose your medical records. People still donate, however, to help couples or families struggling with infertility.

Clearly, this is a very emotional subject (on both sides), and I do empathize with your situation, but I suggest you try and also look at other perspectives too - are adopted children less worthy than children born and raised by biological parents? Are children born from sperm or egg donation less worthy? Are your parents, who raised you, took care of you, and hopefully, loved you, somehow not your parents because they don't completely share part or all of your DNA? Can you try and empathize with how they feel as well?

I sincerely hope you were raised in a loving household, and that your parents (the ones who took care of you as a child) were good ones. It seems to me that you have a lot of anger and frustration, and that makes me pretty sad, to be honest. While I don't know you personally, but as I said before, if I were to ever donate, it would be with the hope that it would help a couple, struggling with fertility issues, to create a loving home and family.

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/04/business/family-tree-dna-... [2] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-47907847 [3] https://globalnews.ca/news/3454884/canadian-sperm-donors-don... [4] https://www.repromed.ca/donor_faq

[robhunter]

It's less anger and frustration about my own situation, and more about the lived experiences of hundreds of people I've engaged with and learned from over the years.

tl;dr based on all of their collective experience - please, please, please do not donate sperm if you are not open to contact with the offspring.

> risk mitigation is something an anonymous donation helps with.

No. It doesn't. The law is incredibly clear on this. Sperm donation (anonymous or open ID) is treated the same and no one has a claim to your assets. I would consider this argument if you could find me one such case where a donor conceived individual (conceived through a formal fertility clinic) makes a claim on the estate of their donor - no such example exists.

> These decisions they make for you carry over and affect your life, and there's very little you can do to change that.

But why allow for the intentional deprivation of the knowledge of their genetic origins? You're suggesting we just accept negative, harmful circumstances without attempting to make positive changes?

> are adopted children less worthy than children born and raised by biological parents?

As you may be aware, closed/previously anonymous adoption records have been unsealed in many jurisdictions across the world. Society/the law has determined that intentional secrecy around genetic origins is a bad thing for human beings. I see similar things happening with donor conception (the records were opened in Australia, for instance).

> You also have to disclose your medical records.

You'd be surprised at how lax many clinics are on this issue. It is first and foremost a for-profit business. Many documented cases of severe mental health issues with donors - and even more with parents being outright lied to about the specifics in a donor's profile.

> So with regards to restrictions, I think that a reasonable solution would be along the lines of requiring companies like FamilyTreeDNA or 23andMe check with a database run by clinics if a person is a result of a donation

No such database exists. We have been advocating for such a database for 20+ years here in Canada. 90% of offspring of heterosexual social parents that are donor conceived do not know they are donor conceived. Are you proposing that someone would submit their DNA to 23andme, but not be able to receive their results back if they were donor conceived? What if they didn't know they were donor conceived, and found out as a result of your policy? Does that sound like a good idea?

> As for my 3rd cousins, and even more distant relatives (some of whom I'm in closer contact with than my 1st cousins) the assumption I never met them is ridiculous.

I think you misunderstood my point here.

Do you know all of your third cousins? I think most people do not know all of their 3rd cousins. If you're the rare exception to that, my apologies.

My point is that a hypothetical offspring can easily identify you if there is anyone within 3 generations removed from you that has happened to be on one of these sites.

Rather than prevent offspring (who, again, have no agency here) from using these sites, why not prevent any relative within 3 generations of sperm donors from using 23andme? How about a database of donors, and anyone within 3 generations is not able to have their information listed on 23andme?

Given that donors have agency in this (they are choosing to donate sperm) and offspring do not, that would seem to be a fairer way to accomplish your objectives for privacy.

[heh]

Well, I'm glad to hear that at least your personal situation is good. and I am glad that this has led to a good discussion. It's pretty heartbreaking to hear that a lot of people are unhappy about their similar situations.

To address your comments:

That's why I explicitly uses the word 'contest'. As I mentioned, the fact that this might delay in any way the execution of my will upon my death could cause hardship to my loved ones. This has to do with the way I earn money (as a consultant). My wife who owns a minority stake in our consulting business would need to take over and execute business decisions immediately.

I'm not saying we can't make changes for the better. I'm saying that you don't have control over the circumstances of your birth, or your young life. This however is not a good reason to deprive a charitable donor (in the case of Canada) of their privacy.

Regarding adoption records, anonymity laws were originally put in place to protect young children from being abandoned on doorsteps and to stop infanticide.

As for lax standards, I can't comment on for profit clinics in the US, and I am not sure how much money is made on the clinic's part in Canada, but from what I've looked into as a potential donor in Canada, the standards were very rigorous, and it would be unpaid to the donor at least, as per law and health Canada guidelines.

> No such database exists. We have been advocating for such a database for 20+ years here in Canada. 90% of offspring of heterosexual social parents that are donor conceived do not know they are donor conceived. Are you proposing that someone would submit their DNA to 23andme, but not be able to receive their results back if they were donor conceived? What if they didn't know they were donor conceived, and found out as a result of your policy? Does that sound like a good idea?

I think that would be a reasonable outcome, at least, to protect an anonymous donor's privacy, but I'd also expect parents who used donations to have a conversation about the matter before having a child send off a kit to one of those companies. I think then reaching out to the donor, via the escrow of the fertility clinic, to see if contact would be welcome, would be fair to all parties involved. ReproMed also has a Sibling Registry - which I do have qualms with, namely the cost to register. Something like this should be publicly funded, IMHO, as part of the healthcare system. I think this is a situation that sucks for everyone, to be fair. More on this topic below.

>Do you know all of your third cousins? I think most people do not know all of their 3rd cousins. If you're the rare exception to that, my apologies. >My point is that a hypothetical offspring can easily identify you if there is anyone within 3 generations removed from you that has happened to be on one of these sites. >Rather than prevent offspring (who, again, have no agency here) from using these sites, why not prevent any relative within 3 generations of sperm donors from using 23andme? How about a database of donors, and anyone within 3 generations is not able to have their information listed on 23andme? >Given that donors have agency in this (they are choosing to donate sperm) and offspring do not, that would seem to be a fairer way to accomplish your objectives for privacy.

I do, the ones who are alive at least. Hoping to spend Rosh Hashana with my gran's cousin's family, which includes her grandson, who is indeed my third cousin :). While I'd be ok with this scenario, at that point you have exposed the donors, and you've taken potential agency away from multiple people, rather than the singular potential offspring(s). It's pretty much a loose-loose situation either way.

Either way personally I'd be happier if these sites didn't exist at all, but that's besides the point :).

[robhunter]

We can probably do this forever :)

It's clear you've done a lot of secondary research. I am, too, very familiar with the situation in Canada and have done a lot of advocacy work here. I would suggest that the standards are not quite as rigorous or well defined as you might have been led to believe (I've spent time at several panels put on by Health Canada and engaged with many "experts" that have led me to that conclusion).

If you're seriously considering donating, I'd encourage you to engage with more human beings and do some primary research - recipient parents, offspring, and other donors - rather than just relying on your (certainly useful, but empathetic-aly limited) secondary research.

This is one of the more active communities of said types of people:

https://www.facebook.com/groups/DonorConceived/

[swordsmith]

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.