What a lot of homophobic drivel. All of this would then apply to heterosexual couples that cannot conceive naturally. I don't see the author clamouring for them to include the donor father in parenting.

The law is very specific, the donor of an AI conceived is legally not considered to be a parent. The child however, has the right to know his identity upon reaching the age of 18.

For gay couples, sperm donation is about creating a family, the donor has donated in order to facilitate this and does so with the strict understanding that he is not to be involved. It is perfectly possible for the donor to donate with the understanding that he is involved, and this does occur in many cases (you can search under co parenting sites).

I would bet that the author is motivated by religious reasons not with the well being of the child or parents in mind.

As clarification, the article by Angela Shanahan appeared in The Weekend Australian 19/2/2011.

Shadow Minister is wrong on two counts:

(1) Maggie has made exactly the same points about the donor-conceived children of heterosexual couples – see for example the article she wrote in the Australian Rationalist – so she and her article are not homophobic, and

(2) She is not writing from a religious point of view and is in fact a member of the Rationalist Association of Australia.

SM and others on this site are too prone to jump to unwarranted conclusions that fit their preconceptions and match their crude stereotypes.

SM writes purely from the point of view of the adults involved.

Maggie's whole point was that the rights of the children are left out of this debate. Can SM guarantee that when all these children become independent adults, none of them will have grief or sadness about the way they were conceived? I think the answer is "no", in which case no-one has the right to take this risk with the lives of children who have no say in what occurred.

Maggie's is a voice for the off-spring, so please listen, empathise and try to understand.

You have nothing to lose and much to gain by this.

The reality of life is that every child who ever existed has one mother and one father. In some cases, a child is unable to grow up with one or two of their parents because of circumstances that are considered unfortunate, such as death, divorce or desertion. In most of these cases a child will still receive excellent care, either by a single or adoptive parents, but it is completely unconscionable in a civil society to deliberately separate a child from his or her biological mum and dad, merely to meet the desires of adults, no matter how good they might 'parent'. In such circumstances the state steps in to legally decreed somebody a parent, which is an inherently more unstable and arbitrary arrangement than the state merely recognising the biological realities of the natural family.

I cannot for the life of me understand why this article is directed towards gay and lesbian couples who are/want to be parents.

Does the author have any idea how many heterosexuals deny children access to family members for a million different reasons? Does she have any idea how many children of heterosexual couples never know paternal or maternal grandparents and family when there's been fights, or parental separation?

And what about hetero couples who whose anonymous donors?

To build this argument for the rights of children around gay and lesbian couples is homophobic, and it certainly isn't doing any favours for millions of children who are denied knowledge of their families. Opportunistic prejudice is what I'd call it. Do some research and you'll find that the number of hetero couples who deny kids contact with and knowledge of their other family members and therefore half of their biological heritage, is far more than gay and lesbian couples.

MULTIPLE BIOLOGICAL PARENTS ?

BW writes: "The reality of life is that every child who ever existed has one mother and one father."
This may not be true in the future ('A step towards three-parent babies?' [1]).
As Maggie points out, non-standard reproductive techniques are already complicating the issue of parenthood ('Multiple parents – Challenging Our Concept of Parent' [2]).
Reproduction with multiple biological parents would add a completely new dimension of complexity ('A Legal Puzzle: Can a Baby Have Three Biological Parents?' [3]).

[1] http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080206/full/news.2008.560.html
[2] http://www.nelligan.ca/e/pdf/Multiple_Parents.pdf
[3] http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/26/opinion/26tues3.html

"According to Australian ethicist Professor Margot Somerville, no procedure should be embarked upon unless we can be absolutely certain that children conceived by various medical interventions will approve of what was done to them as infants when they reach adulthood."

So that rules out circumcision. And maybe we shouldn't save babies' lives, because who knows -- when they grow up they might think they would be better off dead. And there are people who deliberately get their healthy limbs amputated: what if you saved your baby's arm and she grew up to be one of those?

But why stop at medical procedures? Obviously naming a baby is potentially one of the cruellest and most inappropriate things you can do: so let's just call them all "Hey You!" and at eighteen they can choose names of their own. And poor parents -- take that child immediately and leave it in a basket outside the nearest millionaire's house!

Or we could just apply some common sense and assume that in general parents love their children -- actual and potential -- and are sincerely trying to do their best for them, at least until we have some evidence to the contrary.

@Ian, then why even mention the Gay?

Ian,

You are jumping to conclusions too. My concern is also with the children. The assertion that "No-one has a right to a child; and no-one, whether gay, straight, single, married, young or old is entitled to someone else's child, especially when that child's own human rights are thoroughly trampled on." is so irrational in this context that I am lead to believe that there must be an alternative motive, such as religion for this trumped up drivel.

Considering that there are 1000s of children conceived by donation every year the majority through the informal system, and of these only handful have shown psychological problems, this would indicate that this is blown out of proportion. Given that children of gay couples show a psychological balance at least equal to those of heterosexual couples, the entire argument is without rational base.

This is comparable to saying that because older women are more likely to have birth defects that they should be banned from having children.

I get so sick and tired of these types of articles which are premised on the supposition that nuclear families with mum, dad and the kids are somehow inherently healthy. Of course, most of them are reasonably functional but not all of them. I am the parent of two daughers and we live as a nuclear family but my own upbringing was very different. Indeed, there was a period of 6 years after my parents divorced where the whole branch of my paternal family was cut-off: father, grandmother, aunts, uncles and cousins due to a religious prejudice against my father's sexuality. This situation has had ramifications for the rest of my life.
People that peddle this sort of half-truth about gay couples do more damage than those that are outright bigots because they somehow manage to package up their biases in something which approximates reasonableness. I felt ill reading this article and hope people realise what a load of rubbish it is.
I would also add that our retrospective views of how good or bad our parenting was need to be tested objectively and not simply accepted tout court as if they represent something concrete and real rather than our own subjective views (of course, I'm not referring to cases of abuse, violence, etc. here).

Maggi when you gave praise to Angela Shanahan, a devout Roman Catholic of the political right,and definately not a supporter of gay people; it diminished any credibility for your essay.

I found this article offensive and senseless. The continual assertion that people who cannot have children are selfish in their desire to do so makes no sense at all. What about those are are fertile and wish to have children? Are their children also "mere commodities"?
No child gets to choose their parents or the circumstances of their birth. This applies equally to those conceived naturally or with medical assistance.
Many people grow up being unhappy about their parents or their treatment as infants. I am sure that some people born via IVF don't have a monopoly on this. I agree that all people should have a right to know who their biological parents are. However, this has nothing to do with Gays, Lesbians or IVF. I suspect that the majority of people who don't know who their father is are born to heterosexual women. Many to married heterosexual women who have had an affair. The author does not appear to include them in her article, singling out people born "unnaturally". I suspect that is her real issue.

As the beginning of the article makes clear, this article was a response to an article in The Age called something like "What the Prime Minister needs to hear about gay marriage?" which seemed to ignore the rights of the children. Hence the title, which does seem to single out gays, but this isn't the intention, as you can see if you actually read the article, which states: "no-one, whether gay, straight, single, married, young or old is entitled to someone else's child, especially when that child's own human rights are thoroughly trampled on". So non-gay couples and individuals are included in the critique.

Shadow Minister, you say the above is "so irrational" you suspect ulterior motives, but in the first place, what is irrational about the claim that no-one has the right to a child? It seems to me that claiming the having of a child as a right is to treat children as commodities and possessions that are here to satisfy adult "needs" and "desires" and not as people in their own right and with their own rights, and this seems, not irrational, but distasteful and hard to defend. In the second place, anyone who has followed Maggie's previous writings will know that she was adopted and spent her first twenty years growing up amongst people who, however loving, seemed like aliens to her, and her first forty years not knowing who either of her parents were. So we can infer from that that she has a keen appreciation of and empathy with what it is like to be donor conceived, but not that she is irrational.

So let's put the gay/straight issue to one side and deal with the issue that overarches them all. The rights of the children.

(continued)

(continued)

What Margaret Somerville is saying is that in effect we are treating children as guinea pigs in a huge social experiment, whose outcome we don't know. Given the huge protests at the use of guinea pigs as guinea pigs in science experiments, shouldn't we be equally cognisant of the moral dimensions of using children as guinea pigs.

As more and more donor-conceived children grow up, there is an increasing amount of angst amongst them, but, as Maggie points out, most DC children (roughly 80%) are not told their origins. So we just don't know how most children are affected by the knowledge that they were conceived when their father jerked off into a Petri dish then walked away out of their lives. But more and more are saying they are not happy.

Many of them are saying that, while they don't want to die now they are alive, they believe that it would have better if they had not been conceived if it had to be in this manner.

This is the information you won't see in any fertility clinic or on any "let's start an artificial family" website, but it's important information for any prospective donor-conceiving parents to think about hard and deep.

Knowing this, they may still go ahead and satisfy their desires and create an artificial family. But at least they may have some understanding of what it may be like for the off-spring they create.

Ian Robinson - my question to you is this: how is the nuclear family NOT another social experiment? I hope you realise that this really arose as a construction in response to capitalism and that for the vast majority of time humans have not lived in these circumstances... I'm not sure you can claim that other family arrangements are more or less experimental - surely it's about the relationships between people and not about configurations and lineage, etc. I also don't accept that the unhappiness or dissatisfaction in someone's life can be uniquely traced to the fact that they don't know one or both of their parents as if correcting this would somehow be a magic cure for all psychological ills... I'm finding this a complete fatuous argument...

Ian as you identify yourself as a "Human rights advocate and Atheist*",
you appear to have an anti to any evolvement or change in society.
You consider same sex marriage will negatively redefine marriage, when marriage does not have any religous origin, so why are you bothered, and now in contradiction of your so called being*, you give support to this homophobic essay.

I have read the article, and it supported my previous beliefs about surrogacy and IVF treatment.

A surrogate mother is treated as a human incubator of a foetus, and the mother has no human element.

A male sperm donor is also treated as a human incubator of sperm, and the sperm donor has no human element.

But it also leads to the question of what occurs with about 25% of normal fathers.

Their children are taken from them, and then those children are often raised by another man.

Meanwhile, they themselves might be raising yet another man’s children, while rarely seeing their own children, and normally paying out money for their children to be raised by another man.

Complicated -> very

Sustainable -> totally unlikely

Why choose this title if not to specifically target gay parents?

ALL children should have the right to know of their biological origins.Im absolutely against anonymous donations- children may not want info but should have that right. That goes for ALL parents.

I help people find donors OUTSIDE of clinics so the child CAN know of their origins, and in many cases develop relationships early on. Loving children means offering them what they are likely to need and want including knowing of their origins. Clinics do NOT meet the needs of children- or donors. The donors I work with want to choose people likely to raise the child in a stable and loving environment, and with the similar values. Clinics dont just separate children- they separate whole families.

The quote .. 'unless we can be absolutely certain that children conceived by various medical interventions will approve of what was done to them as infants when they reach adulthood.' is ridiculous.
I have worked with thousands of abused children - raised by their biological parents- who absolutely do not approve of what is being done to them. Decisions affecting children is part of society. Often we dont know what will will do to hurt our children- intentionally or not- until they tell us. That goes for almost every aspect of parenting.

What we can do however is educate ourselves about children, especially issues relating to donnor conception, and make choices that allow our children information. How he is involved after the birth is up to the parties involved - and as the child grows up this should also be something that the child works out for themselves, depending on what they want.

So no, I dont agree with commercial practices- and especially anonymous donations. Many of us are creating a really positive, loving community where children are our priority. A community that understands our basic human desire to have a family and share love, and who understand that this decision should not be undertaken lightly.

This article is one sided, inaccurate poppycock. (And Im straight.)
www.childrendeservetoknow.com
www.facebook.com/DIYBaby

Ian,

Firstly it is a fundamental human right to control one's own fertility. This includes whether or not one has a child. In the days before donor conception, an illicit affair or a one night stand where the biological father never knew the child existed.

Secondly a handful of anecdotes of children suffering a little angst about not really knowing their biological fathers does not justify why the vast majority of perfectly content donor children should not exist.

Ian, can you honestly tell me you are not pursuing this from a religious background.

People should turn their backs on the fertility authorities current 'options' and find child centred solutions. Laws have to start changing and recognising alternative families.

Many men want to donate, choose a great woman or couple, and be known. Why should they be expected to financially support the child, if the agreement BEFORE conception was to help bring a child into the world to be raised by that woman or couple. However alongside this assistance they should be able to be known to the child- and for the child to choose the relationship as they grow up.

This concept is still so new and many cant get their heads around it- thinking they should be an active father or not donate. But many infertile straight couples need that help- and the husband will be the 'daddy' - soothing nightmares etc. He also wants the financial responsibility- but they need a donor. Why should that mean the donor cant be in the child's life in some way, if the child wants that?

Our laws - and society find that so difficult to 'organise' mentally. Its not clear cut as with a bank- where the infertile couple raise the child and the donor doesnt have anything to do with it. But by thinking outside the box - and outside of current 'legally recognised' options we can meet the needs of everyone. When an arrangement is made before conception- why cant we separate 'roles'? Why cant we have all parents on the birth certificate- bio and social. All arrangements should be flexible as the child should have a say in things- but many of us are working towards showing society that we CAN put children first- and have families whether single, gay...pink, blue green.

So writers and journalist such as this one should attack the fertility authorities for faciliating anonymous donations- and see what others are doing outside of this is AMAZING.Many gay couples are turning their backs on clinics and purposefully choosing a donor who WILL be known to the child. As can be seen on our page
www.facebook.com/DIYBaby

Maggie,
I just wanted to say thank you for standing up for the rights of those who have no say in the matter. I will make this brief, as I do not have the mental energy to counter all of the negative comments on here.
I very much agree that every person has the right to, as far as possible, know their genetic family. To be denied this is to be denied who we are. At 27 years of age, as a result of donor conception, I am still searching to discover the missing pieces. I would never deliberately impose this onto any other person, let alone my own children

@Kimberley
I sympathise with your situation.

As a grandmother I am still wondering about the missing pieces in my life because I was never allowed to know my father and his family.

And I was born the ordinary way.

Ideally all children should grow up in a loving family consisting of their biological parents and perhaps siblings. But we all know this doesn’t always happen. No parent is perfect and some are less perfect than others. The family may be fraught with conflict and/or disintegrate, or one or both parents may be lost to accident or disease. The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune make life difficult enough without creating further avoidable problems. The thing about natural parents and siblings is that they are like you in so many indefinable and ineffable ways that one is not aware of them until they are absent or until one discovers them late in life. These are part of how we define ourselves and find out who we are. One adoptee told me that when growing up it was like being with aliens – at a basic level they didn’t understand her and she didn’t understand them. She was loved enough but there was a basic connection missing. This is what is denied to adoptees and to some extent donor-conceived children, especially if two donated gametes are used.

CONTINUED

CONTINUED

Now adoptees and donor-conceived children are, like all humans beings, very adaptable and they will try to fit into their particular situation, even if they don’t feel comfortable in it. More than that, because of the circumstances of their being there and the often huge obstacles that their parents have had to go through to get them, there will be a incredibly strong unconscious pressure put on them to be “successful” offspring. They will pick this up and either consciously or more likely unconsciously try to be the “good” children that their parents have longed so much for. They know the consequences if they don’t would be dire. So most of these families seem very happy and functional and on the surface everything is fine but deeper down there are problems that often don’t surface until perhaps adulthood, or when they have their own first child or even later in life. So one has to say that while things look somewhat rosy at the moment, the jury is still out on the success of otherwise of DC families. It took many years for the negative effects of adoption on both children and natural mothers was recognised. For many years it was ignored or pushed under the carpet.

Another factor in the situation is that many DC children are not told – some estimates put it as high as 80% – and they may never know what their genetic inheritance is or why they feel slightly uncomfortable with one or other of their parents. So what happens to them may never be attributed to the real cause. And think about the non-contributing parent – there must be underlying and unconscious feelings there of inadequacy and jealousy that may be repressed and not acknowledged but which may emerge in other ways.

CONTINUED

CONTINUED

What Maggie was trying to do was simply point out that it’s not as simple as has been made out in the glowing documentaries we see on the television. Raising DC children is fraught and only by complete openness and contact with natural parents can the dangers be minimised. She was upset that too many parents, both gay and straight, seem to be ignoring this imperative, and blithely steaming ahead with anonymous gametes without seeing the whole picture. People would be wise to listen to her carefully and not become defensive, let alone abusive.

Another point that is worth mentioning is that as the business of obtaining children becomes more commercial, whether though inter-country adoption or surrogacy or gamete sale, it is just another case of the poor being exploited for the benefit of the rich. Apart from a few cases of surrogate siblings, it usually poor women who give up their children to others and poor women who become surrogates for rich ones and poor women who donate their eggs for rich ones to have babies, so there is an underlying social justice issue here too.

ENDS

Don't worry Ian (and Maggie), with the advent of personal genome sequencing and genomic medicine almost upon us, most of these kids will know exactly what their 'genetic inheritance' is.

I can almost guarantee that many won't be happy anyway if we keep talking about their existence and entry into this world as somehow 'unnatural'.

Ian,

Have you any figures to back up what you are saying? I have 5 friends that were adopted, and while all of them wondered about their biological parents, none of them would have gone out of their way to find them. One in particular had the opportunity a few years ago and declined.

I know of a single mother that used a donor with the particular intent of the father having a small role. The inconsistent involvement with gaps of sometimes a year, have done more damage than if he had never been known.

I am a firm believer in family, but one's family is simply those that love and care for you. Recent studies have shown DC children to be as well balanced as those in nuclear families, so while some people have angst over the issue, it is a tiny minority.

As for the choices of the parents, none would resort to DC if they had a partner that could do the job. Saying that their only option is to remain childless is cruel and heartless, and I suspect more than a little homophobic and self righteous.

Maggie Millar has targeted a real and difficult problem. And I agree with much of the reasoning around donor-conceived children. However, there is a level of splenetic discourse here that goes beyond criticism. There are other options - legal *and* humane options - apart from donor-conceived children. Some heterosexual, married infertile couples don't think it is their 'right' to adopt, to foster, to parent. They're very much aware that children are a gift (and a massive responsibility - that some don't take seriously enough!). And yet, if those couples have the opportunity to help one of the myriad children orphaned, given up for adoption, and in such dire circumstances that the home they would provide would be far better than no home at all, isn't that a superior outcome than the life that child has now and into the future? It's mutually beneficial. But there was no mention of legal adoption in the rant; there was no nuance. It's rather unfortunate, because Millar makes some very good points.

@Shadow Minister

Statistically, adoptees are over-represented in crime statistics, divorce courts, psychiatric institutions and social welfare interventions.

I'll try to get precise refs for you if you want.

Ian,

Given that adoptees are from mothers that cannot care for them, and a significant number of them are taken from parents with psychological or drug problems, it is entirely expected that they would be over represented in crime, and mental issues.

This does not apply to DC children. If you had statistics on DC children this would be relevant.

As soon as women wear a short skirt, lippy and make-up they knowingly become a commodity and their children are instantly commoditised.

Women have to get over their sugar and spice and all things nice fantasy and realise if they put themselves on the market then they must face the price-war consequences as COMPETITION, not male evil rules the negativities of their existence.

At the end of 2030 when OIL is too expensive to buy, no one will have any rights let alone children or unborn children.

That's overpopulation and market saturation. Don't rely on governments and THEIR legal system to bail you out when they are profiting from human oversupply.

That's life. Women must get used to it or perish .. OR stop having more than one child you SELFISH little sods.

Shadow Minister wrote:
"Recent studies have shown DC children to be as well balanced as those in nuclear families, so while some people have angst over the issue, it is a tiny minority."

First I'd like to know what studies you are referring to. A recent study titled "My Daddy's Name is Donor" 15 major findings shows -
1) Young adults conceived through sperm donation (or “donor offspring”) experience profound struggles with their origins
and identities.
2) Family relationships for donor offspring are more often char-2.
acterized by confusion, tension, and loss.
3)Donor offspring often worry about the implications of inter-3.
acting with – and possibly forming intimate relationships with
– unknown, blood-related family members.
4)Donor offspring are more likely to have experienced divorce or 4.
multiple family transitions in their families of origin.
5)Donor offspring are significantly more likely than those raised 5.
by their biological parents to struggle with serious, negative
outcomes such as delinquency, substance abuse, and depression,
even when controlling for socio-economic and other factors.
6)Donor offspring born to heterosexual married couples, single 6.
mothers, or lesbian couples share many similarities.
7)At the same time, there appear to be notable differences between
donor offspring born to heterosexual married couples, single
mothers, and lesbian couples.

(continued on next post)

(continued from previous comment)

8)Donor offspring broadly affirm a right to know the truth about
their origins.
9)About half of donor offspring have concerns about or serious objections to donor conception itself, even when parents tell
the children the truth about their origins.
10)Openness alone does not appear to resolve the complex risks that
are associated with being conceived through sperm donation.
11)While a majority of donor offspring support a right to know the truth about their origins, significant majorities also sup-
port, at least in the abstract, a strikingly libertarian approach
to reproductive technologies in general.
12)Adults conceived through sperm donation are far more likely
than others to become sperm or egg donors or surrogates
themselves.
13)hose donor offspring who do not support the practice of donor conception are more than three times as likely to say they do
not feel they can express their views in public.
14)Donor conception is not “just like” adoption.
15)Today’s grown donor offspring present a striking portrait of racial, ethnic, and religious diversity.

You can read the entire report here (remove spaces to link): http : //familyscholars . org/my-daddys-name-is-donor-2/

Other important (new) research in the area may be found here (remove spaces to link):
https : //www . donorsiblingregistry . com/resource-library/dsr-research

Well, that about says it all.

Thanks, Donor Conceived, for your post.

I note that it has silenced the critics.

It is very difficult to argue with hard facts. Beats wild speculation any day.

In short, what every prospective client of mechanical means of reproduction. whether they are straight or gay, needs to know is that that it is by no means an undeviating road to inevitable family bliss and that the only unconsulted party to the interaction, the eventual offspring, is at considerable risk.

What straight and gay couple need to ask themselves is: is their own potential happiness of greater value than the potential harm to a yet-to-be-produced human being.

Given that, some may decide that childlessness is the only ethical option.

Sadly, the source is rather suspect.

The report come from the Institute for American Values, who make their intent crystal clear on their web site:

http://www.americanvalues.org/

"Our current work focuses on four goals.
To increase the proportion of children growing up with their two married parents.
To renew the ethic of thrift and replace the culture of debt and waste.
To help turn the intellectual tide against extremism in the Arab and Muslim world. [¿Qué?]
To improve and civilize our public conversation."

No hidden agendas there, then

The results of the survey speak for themselves. Anyone can look at those results and draw their own conclusions from them. The methodology, survey questions and responses are fully detailed in the report that is free to anyone to view and consider.

You can read the entire report here (remove spaces to link): http : //familyscholars . org/my-daddys-name-is-donor-2/

The results were not altered in any way. This is also the only survey that uses comparison groups.

I would still like to know what "studies" Shadow Minister was referring to:
"Recent studies have shown DC children to be as well balanced as those in nuclear families, so while some people have angst over the issue, it is a tiny minority."

I'm very familiar with the pre-existing studies on this subject. Not one proves this to be true and all are considerably flawed. (sample-recruitment methods/sample size, questions asked, age of participants, parental influence/involvement in responses etc.)

http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/news/20051012/study-same-sex-parents-raise-well-adjusted-kids
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1994480,00.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_parenting
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07161/793042-51.stm

While not directly a study of DC kids, the lesbian same sex families are the single largest DC segment, if not the majority.

Thank you. Here is a response (see below: remove spaces to link) about those lesbian "donor" conceived studies to consider. There are more. If you'd like me to find them, let me know and I will.

http : //familyscholars . org/2010/06/11/studying-the-sperm-donor-conceived-offspring-of-lesbian-mothers/

"...the lesbian same sex families are the single largest DC segment, if not the majority"

Actually that is not true. The largest segment of the population that uses DC are still heterosexuals (although PDG and IVF now allows more heteros the option to conceive w/the use of their own gametes) single women and lesbians are using 'donors' more often these days but there also seems to be a trend towards the increasing use of 'known donors' and co-parenting whom they find through their own social networking.

DC, I'm sorry, but I would have to disagree.

While the majority of DC conceptions through clinics might be heterosexual, the unofficial networks according to a recent news article are responsible for up to 10x the number of conceptions. These are mostly same sex couples.

Just one site is responsible for more conceptions than all official clinics together:

http://www.sperm-donors-worldwide.com/

And there are plenty of others.

Yes, I was speaking of clinics. These types of non-clinic arrangements are happening more and more often (because of the internet age). It really is impossible though to say for sure that lesbians make up the majority since there is no way to measure or track it. I think these folks are taking big risks though, all around. It will be interesting to see how THIS social experiment will play out in 20 years time when the people conceived from these arrangements, organize and find their voice. I suspect there will be many conflicts of loyalties, not much unlike the current 'donor' (clinic) conceived adults who *we* are just beginning to hear from. I hope that more large random studies of autonomous adults conceived from these arrangements, w/comparison groups, will happen in order to track their experiences - so *we* can learn and help educate.

DC,

I did actually take the trouble to look through the website, and it is nearly all for same sex couples.

They have sprung up, not just because of the internet, but because of well intentioned idiots that imposed so many regulations and requirements on donors at clinics that the supply of donors has dwindled to a trickle, and the treatments are very expensive.

These websites are unregulated and essentially free. For same sex couples, they get a child with none of the expense and government required red tape, so the choice is easy.

Bearing in mind his advice to Bernard about constructing a survey on national service, Sir Humphrey would have found The Institute for American Values' Centre for Marriage and Families report "sound". My issue is the commentary, whose prose when not purple is too frequently heliotrope.

Nevertheless, this from page 63 is straightforward…

"For starters, well over half of the donor offspring say they favor the practice of donor conception. When asked, “What is your opinion of the practice of donor conception?” 61% say they favor it, compared to 39% of adopted adults and 38% raised by their biological parents.[See note]
For their thinking on donor conception and reproductive technologies in general, take a look at their responses to the following four statements:
I think every person has a right to a child: 76% of donor conceived, 52% of adopted, and 54% of those raised by biological parents agree.
Artificial reproductive technologies are good for children because the children are wanted: 76% of donor conceived, 65% of adopted, and 61% of those raised by biological parents agree.
Our society should encourage people to donate their sperm or eggs to other people who want them: 73% of donor conceived, 50% of adopted, and 42% of those raised by biological parents agree.
Health insurance plans and government policies should make it easier for people to have babies with donated sperm or eggs: 76% of donor conceived, 60% of adopted, and 54% of those raised by biological parents agree.
In response to each of these statements, a large majority of the donor conceived adults - around three-quarters - support strong assertions of the rights of adults to access reproductive technologies, including donor conception, and they support the strengthening of laws and policies to help them do so."

[My note: cf. those opposed: 7% donor conceived, 15% adopted 18% raised by biological parents]

My conclusion is that this survey representing the "only unconsulted part[ies] to the interaction, the eventual offspring" is running 3 to one against the article's contentions.

As Ian Robinson reminds us, "It is very difficult to argue with hard facts."

Shadow Minister wrote: "...but because of well intentioned idiots that imposed so many regulations and requirements on donors at clinics that the supply of donors has dwindled to a trickle, and the treatments are very expensive.

These websites are unregulated and essentially free. For same sex couples, they get a child with none of the expense and government required red tape, so the choice is easy."

I have to assume that you are not from the United States. In the USA there are no regulations or restrictions on who buys the product, the only restrictions on who sells the product is based on sperm motility and genetic testing. Other than that, there are no limits on the number of people produced, no tracking on how many people are produced, no ability for those people to know who their biological father, half siblings, grandparents, aunts/uncles/nieces/nephews/cousins, no mandates on disclosure, no mandates on counseling for intended parent(s) or 'donors'. All you need is a little bit of cash to chose the genetic material of your dreams from a catalogue. That's it.

I suppose you might think the USA free market approach is a better way. Well, it's not. It's a mess.

Also, the removal of anonymity in the UK did not result in a loss of donors (http://www.hfea.gov.uk/3411.html)

WmTrevor: It's great that that data is available for you and everyone to view for themselves and it is easy to cherry pick results that support a specific POV but to be truly open minded and scrutinizing we all need to look at the full picture. There are many results that are very concerning and the commentary on this report attempts to address those concerns.

DC,

Actually there are a shortage of donors in the UK for the very same reason as here.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/12/health/12iht-12sperm.17742155.html

The result both here and the UK is that the tight regulation has driven sperm donation away from the clinics to the DIY sector. As what people are doing is between 2 consenting adults it is impossible to ban.

Another example of the law of unintended consequences, where ill thought through legislation has the opposite effect of what it intended.

Shadow Minister:
The NY Times is gravely misinformed. It is amazing actually that *they* allow writers to spread this kind of misinformation. The true experts tell another story, such as Eric Blyth in this BioNews article:

"Reply to 'Gamete donation in the UK: Time to think again'

13 April 2010

By Professor Eric Blyth
Professor of Social Work, University of Huddersfield and Visiting Professor, Hong Kong Polytechnic University

Appeared in BioNews 554
The Bridge Centre's plea to 'think again' about arrangements for gamete donation in the UK (1) takes yet another ill-founded and unsubstantiated swipe at the lifting of donor anonymity and its impact on donor services. The Bridge Centre also indicts the removal of anonymity, together with donor compensation arrangements, as responsible for the 'explosive growth of fertility tourism'. A healthy debate on these issues is always welcome, but it seems that some people at least do not want to hear messages that conflict with their own entrenched assumptions."

For those who are interested in truth (without agenda), read the full article here: http://www.bionews.org.uk/page_58427.asp

DC,

The NY times article refects other articles in the UK and Australia, for example:

http://www.couriermail.com.au/questnews/central/web-to-lure-sperm-donors/story-fn8m0qb4-1226104273655

"He said donations dropped off dramatically after a licensing requirement was introduced in 2005 which meant donors could be identified at the child's request once they turned 18."

It is also a matter of simple logic. Some donors want anonymity some don't. If you exclude one category, the availability will be less. That there is an extreme shortage in Australia is also not in doubt. Secondly, there are recipients that also prefer anonymity, for whom these donors would be perfect.

Eric Blyth does not contradict the shortage of donors, only questions the reasons for wanting to reverse the law.

The removal of anonymity did not create a so called *shortage of "donors"* The numbers actually increased. What is your point?

DC,

Numbers increased. - Absolute Rubbish.

Please show me where they did. Every single article I read contradicts what you claim.

Shadow Minister: If you have been following and reading what I've written and the links I've provided you with you will clearly see the evidence that "donors" did not decrease with the removal of anonymity in 2005. Here is the link to the figures again: http://www.hfea.gov.uk/3411.html

Anonymity was abolished in the UK in 2005: Here are the figures from that link 2005+

2005 251 921
2006 287 781
2007 366 969
2008 396 1,150

Also from the link

1993 422
1994 417
1995 412
1996 417

The usual source of Students has fallen away and has been replaced after much advertising with older men.

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/new-laws-threaten-sperm-donation-437657.html

There is a growing shortage, leading to the import from overseas.

In Australia, the shortage is so acute that waiting lists for donors are greater than a year. "Some clinics have blamed the decline in donor numbers on recent law changes."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2010-04-12/clinics-forced-to-advertise-for-sperm-donors/2602896

The law did not change until 2005 and the numbers have increased.