Doctor Comments on Profit Motive for Sperm Banks

Submitted by Erickson Law on Mon, 11/16/2009 - 1:55pm

There was an interesting article in the Washington Times on Friday, whereby the physician quoted blames the profit motive behind sperm donation (and the resulting passage of inheritable diseases) for the damage that has been done to these families. He believes that the recently reported case of the sperm donor who helped create 24 children, nine of whom became sick with an inherited heart condition, is a cry (scream) for reform.

While I do agree with about 50% of his arguments, we must remember that reform will be good if it allows people (couples and individuals) to make their own choices when it comes to reproductive freedom.

Another point to make is that even with blood and other tissues, there is some profit even in a non-profit organization - salaries are paid, as are bonuses - just look at the American Red Cross.

Secondly, I do believe that their should be some additional controls and guidance over gamete donors, as well as a way to track how many donations are occurring and the number of resulting births. This is also where follow ups are needed - if there is a profit being made, the least that can be done is some form of tracking. Genetic counseling is also admirable, but again it is based on the donor's knowledge of their own history, as well as their family's history.

Finally, although I do not agree with the complete loss of anonymity, I do think that an open identity option is preferable. In fact, out of 100 egg donors, I see only one out of the 100 that is not open to being contacted for medical reasons and when and if the child would like to meet them in the future. I think that this is an honorable compromise that will make the parties work together, as well as protect the child in the future. What are your thoughts?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/13/doctor-blames-profit-mot...

Erickson Law's blog
Login or register to post comments
4066 reads

Comments

I fully disagree with you

Submitted by Donor Conceived on Mon, 11/16/2009 - 3:44pm.

I fully disagree with you. I do think additional controls and guidance over gamete vending "donation" desperately and urgently needs to be implemented world wide but here in the US especially. Institutionalized anonymity is just wrong and needs to be abolished.

From a legal/equal justice standpoint it is a matter of freedom of information and equal choice. Institutionalized anonymity does create emotional/psychological harm to many and goes against the “Hippocratic Oath” to do no harm. I’ve written more about this here in response to an article written by Cheryl Miller in the “Hit and Run” section of Reason Magazine http://www.donorsiblingregistry.com/DSRblog/?p=72:

“While Cheryl Miller notes that would-be-parent’s desire for a child is not a “whim”, I equally argue that a person’s desire for identity and meaningful connection to half (or all) of their genetic roots and ancestry is not a “whim” or mere “curiosity”. This is just as much a natural biologically rooted and emotional/psychological predisposition as a desire for a child. Not all people feel the desire for a genetically related child to fulfill their needs, just as not all people feel the desire to know the identity of their biological father and/or be allowed to have meaningful connections with their genetic roots and ancestry to fill their needs. Each individual will feel differently but one should not trump another.

Some like to argue that these disconnects happen all the time in other unintended ways, but this equally does not justify giving professionals, institutions and the gamete industry the legal power to withhold information from the very people they help to create.

The Hippocratic Oath, “Do no harm”, needs to apply to all interested parties in these complicated family formations. Let’s not forget that this should and must, first and foremost, apply towards the very people (and their children) that they are all intentionally collaborating together to bring into this world – People who might have a deep biologically rooted, emotional and psychological need to know this information for their sense of personal identity, belonging, connection and emotional well being; not only for themselves but for their own children as well.

Who is to say that biology does or doesn’t matter in our personal definition of family and identity? Let’s try to move forward in a way that that respects everyone’s choice while putting emphasis on the yet to be conceived offspring’s anticipated consent.”