health

Home DNA tests doom anonymity for sperm, egg donors

3 Comments
By Ivan Couronne

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© 2018 AFP

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.


3 Comments
Login to comment

Jackson says she hopes the end of anonymity will force sperm banks to limit the number of children born to the same donor.

"Having less anonymous donors is a good thing," she said.

What she doesn't realize is if anonymity goes away SO WILL the donors & people like her may never be born

This article shows how technology is great & how it sucks! Expect more of these types of situations as time goes by

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This is wonderful news. Children are entitled to a relationship with and care from both of the people who brought them into being. Depriving a child of relationships with his or her parents is an injustice to the child.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Children are entitled to a relationship with and care from both of the people who brought them into being. Depriving a child of relationships with his or her parents is an injustice to the child.

You mean biological parents, as a child born through sperm donation may be in a household with one parent only, or two parents (of whom only one is the biological parent). In many countries, it's unlikely even to be a legal requirement that a child be made aware that they are born to a sperm donor.

Where your notion of a child's entitlement founders is that sperm donation practically assures that the resulting child does not receive care from its male biological parent. At best that child can hunt down the donor in adulthood; during childhood it is deprived of time with its biological father, and in many cases, of even the knowledge that it has a biological father in addition to the person it has come to know as its father.

Removing anonymity hasn't necessarily improved the situation, and it has had an absolutely drastic effect on the rate of sperm donation. This should surprise no one, but since you mention injustice, while people who donate today have the chance to be made fully aware of potential legal and financial consequences, people who donated 20 or 30 years ago under a system that guaranteed anonymity (and positively encouraged donors as providers of a valuable service) were not to know that technological advances would retroactively screw their anonymity and lay them open to new obligations if a child were to track them down. One thing you might not have considered adequately is that a single donor could (and often did) create multiple offspring. It's hardly reasonable that they should be considered responsible for that when they had so little actual involvement, and no actual control over those decisions between the sperm bank, the insemination clinic, and the mother.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites