Is Dr Evan Harris MP argument actually a back door strategy to try to reinstate 'donor' anonymity in the UK?

Submitted by Donor Conceived on Sun, 08/09/2009 - 5:49pm

Dr Evan Harris MP suggests that he agrees that payment for gametes is wrong BUT thinks a better solution is to reinstate anonymity because parents would be less likely to disclose with open donors.

WHERE IS THE LOGIC/EVIDENCE TO BACK THIS KIND OF STATEMENT!!! It could equally be argued that parents would be less likely to disclose because they DID use an ANONYMOUS 'donor' out of fear that the child will be upset, confused or feel rejected if their biological father/mother was not open to contact/relationship from/with them.

See his latest letter to the Guardian here:

"Paying donors for eggs is wrong"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/theobserver/2009/aug/09/your-letters

--------------------------------------------

I agree that 'donors' should not be paid but reinstating anonymity as a solution is based on unsound reasoning/evidence.

Cheryl Miller also suggested that anonymity is best because it would promote early disclosure in an article she wrote in Reason Magazine http://www.reason.com/news/show/130845.html.

Cheryl Miller's Quote: ” Indeed, as I noted in my article, the right to information does not necessarily lead to greater openness. A mandated registry might win offspring the right to know their donor’s identity, but if it means future parents are less willing to disclose their children’s status, it won’t be much of a victory.”

I responded in an open letter to Cheryl Miller here:

http://www.proudparenting.com/node/2994

"Cheryl Miller emphasized a fear of conception method disclosure as an argument against identifying ‘donor’ (biological father) information disclosure. Quote: ” Indeed, as I noted in my article, the right to information does not necessarily lead to greater openness. A mandated registry might win offspring the right to know their donor’s identity, but if it means future parents are less willing to disclose their children’s status, it won’t be much of a victory.”
I strongly disagree with this logic/reason. First, I would like to know what facts and research she based this assumption on? IT COULD EQUALLY BE ARGUED THAT PARENTS WOULD BE LESS LIKELY TO DISCLOSE BECAUSE THEY DID USE AN ANONYMOUS 'DONOR' OUT OF FEAR THAT THE CHILD WILL BE UPSET, CONFUSED OR FEEL REJECTED BECAUSE THEIR BIOLOGICAL FATHER/MOTHER WAS NOT OPEN TO CONTACT FROM THEM"

----------------------------------
READ MORE PERSPECTIVES IN THE DEBATE HERE:

----------------------------------
Reasononline - Letters - Damian Adams's response to Cheryl Miller's article "Who's your daddy?"

----------------------------------
Cheryl Miller's response to Damian Adam's rebuttal ("Who's your daddy?") article published in Reason Magazine

Read more: http://www.proudparenting.com/node/2993
----------------------------------
Damian Adam's reply to Cheryl Miller's reply to Damian's rebuttal (RE: "Who's your daddy") - tongue twister

Read more: http://www.proudparenting.com/node/2996
----------------------------------
Wendy Kramer's (of the DSR) response to Cheryl Miller's reply to Damien Adams

Read more: http://www.proudparenting.com/node/2995
----------------------------------

Laura Witjens has more to add:

"Give sperm donors some respect"
Guardian
Thursday 25 June 2009
Laura Witjens

SOURCE: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jun/25/sperm-donors-anonymity

"Rather than bring back anonymity, as Laurence Shaw suggests, we should focus on the way donors are treated at clinics"

"I agree with Laurence Shaw that there is a shortage of donor sperm. I even agree that we should be looking at multiple ways of addressing this shortage and that we should call for the legislators to open up the debate – especially on payment and on the maximum number of families.
But I strongly disagree that the removal of anonymity is the cause of the shortage. The incline in numbers after the removal of anonymity speaks for itself. If it is agreed that openness is a bad thing for those conceived, by all means let's review the legislation. But if the sole reason for reinstating anonymity is to increase the number of donors, we can save ourselves the hassle."

Donor Conceived's blog
Login or register to post comments
1152 reads

Comments

Donor numbers have gone up

Submitted by anonymous on Tue, 08/11/2009 - 1:54pm.

We've written to The Times in reply to all the articles on paying egg and sperm donation but unfortunately didn't make it to the final cut.

Donor numbers have gone UP since removal of anonymity, a statistic that was published a week after the article that prompted all the discussions. As I said in a previous article in The Guardian - which you have quoted in this post - "if the sole reason for reinstating anonymity is to increase the number of donors, we can save ourselves the hassle"

"
Like many other professional organisations in the fertility sector we welcome the debate about payment for egg and sperm donors, as triggered by comments from the HFEA’s Chair Professor Lisa Jardine (“Pay donors to end the shortage of IVF eggs, says watchdog”; 27 July 2009). As the National Gamete Donation Trust (NGDT), the national body representing egg and sperm donors, we would be closely involved in this consultation planned for later this year.

The extremely sad casualties mentioned in Lois Rogers’ article (“Dying for a baby: the lethal risks run by women donating eggs for fertility treatment”; 2 August 2009) are presumably used to illustrate the dangers of egg donation for payment. However these were all patients undergoing their own treatment to get pregnant. None of these cases involved egg donors with or without payment and, as sad as it is, only highlight that there are risks involved in undergoing IVF treatment.

What remains apparent however is that safeguards have to be in place to make sure that women who want to help other women to get pregnant don’t make this important decision for money alone. The £3,000 mentioned in the article – I can’t recall that amount being mentioned by the HFEA by the way – clearly would be an incentive and is far too high. Apart from the fact few patients can afford that additional cost on an already hugely expensive treatment, it is not necessary either.

Unlike what is mentioned in this article, altruistic egg and sperm donation have gone up since the removal of anonymity in 2005 (http://www.hfea.gov.uk/3411.html and http://www.hfea.gov.uk/3412.html ). Exactly why the HFEA chose to keep these important figures quiet is baffling as it obviously shows the new approach of recruiting egg and sperm donors is working. Different targeting, improved processes and generally more awareness all contributed to the increase.

Nevertheless we welcome the debate on payment because it would send out a clear message to society in general and donors in particular. A reasonable payment would go some way of expressing our appreciation, something often still painfully lacking.

The challenge now is finding a balance between expressing that value without it being an incentive keeping the views in mind of donor conception parents and donor conceived as well.

We look forward to the consultation.
________

Laura Witjens
Chair of the NGDT

Thank you for sharing Laura.

Submitted by Donor Conceived on Tue, 08/11/2009 - 8:33pm.

Thank you for sharing Laura. I am also perplexed that the Times didn't think your comments were worth the final cut. They were wrong. Your comments are very enlightening.