Very debatable comment RE: Experiences of offspring study- RBM Online

I wanted to bring attention to a HIGHLY debatable comment made in the study ("Experiences of offspring searching for and contacting their donor siblings and donor" RBM Online, 18 April 2010
http://www.ivf.net/ivf/experiences_of_offspring_searching_for_and_contac...) regarding the dissimilarities between adoption and 'donor conception'.

Quote of reference:

"Whilst some have argued that the adoption experience may shed light on donor-conceived individuals' experiences of searching, it is important to bear in mind that there are notable differences between the two groups.

Donor-conceived individuals are usually genetically related to one of their parents and have not been relinquished by a birth parent. Also, with adoption, parents are expected and encouraged to be honest and open with their child about his/her origins. This is not the case with donor conception. Whilst there is now greater openness within donor-conceived families, many parents, particularly those from families headed by heterosexual couples, still choose to keep this
information secret from the child. Donor-conceived individuals are thus more likely to learn of their origins at a later age than adopted individuals, which could have important implications for their experiences of searching for their genetic relations."

Specific quote of contention: "...have not been relinquished by a birth parent."

This really is just not true. 'Donors/gamete sellers/traditional surrogates' are genetic fathers/mothers who have INTENTIONALLY given away/sold their gametes to INTENTIONALLY create a child (children) that in most cases they INTENTIONALLY do not want to parent, take responsibility for or even acknowledge as their offspring (their genetic children). This IS intentional (pre-conception) relinquishment by a birth parent. Which, personally, I think is MUCH more unethical than the non-intentional creation of a child that is relinquished for the child's best interests.