Donor Conception Network - Articles
Why Ending Donor Anonymity is the Right Thing To Do
This article was written for the magazine of Infertility Network
UK
Let me start by saying where I am coming from.
My husband and I have two
children..well young people really..now aged nearly 21 and 18. They have
known about their donor conceived origins since they were very little.
When we had treatment the climate was such that just saying we were going
to 'tell' our kids was pretty unusual, let alone having identifying
information about the donor. If we were needing donor insemination (DI)
today, I'd like to think we would be first on the list for a 'willing to
be known' donor.
As it is, we have no information whatsoever about our children's donors.
Our son has referred to his donor as 'a good bloke who gave my parents a
lot of joy by providing what was needed so they could have a baby'. He
currently has no curiosity about this man although he admits that this
may change as he gets older.
Our daughter has always been curious about
her donor. She would like to know what he looks like, what sort of music
he likes and what his values are. She would like to thank him for helping
to give her life.
Both children are comfortable with their 'different story'. The eldest
recently chose to share information about his origins with new friends
when he went to university. The youngest has always talked about it. They
are normal young people living ordinary lives. What is extraordinary
about them is that they are part of a group of children, young people and
adults in this country who have no rights to know about one half of their
genetic make-up. Unlike those children who have come into existence by
way of a sexual indiscretion, these children have been created
deliberately with the intervention of third parties, fertility clinics
now licensed by the HFEA, where records have been held since 1991 on all
donors and recipients.
Anonymity for sperm and more recently egg donors has its basis in the
social histories of medicine, law and cultural attitudes to infertility.
When donor insemination, then known as AID, began on a professional basis
after the war is was widely condemned by the church and some members of
the medical profession. This, together with the perceived stigma of
infertility, meant it was unsurprising that its practice was surrounded
by secrecy. As it then stood, the law made the donor the legal parent of
the child, with potential financial responsibility, and their only
protection was anonymity. And in the post-war welfarist climate of 'we
know what is best for you' no one thought that the children who were
conceived as a result of AID would want to know about their genetic
background. No one thought they would ever find out they had been
conceived that way.
But now things are different. Assisted conception treatment is well out
of the closet. Donors are now legally freed from financial responsibility
for children they help to create. And from a situation where most parents
kept the fact of assisted conception secret, parents now tend to tell
their children how they were conceived. People conceived through gamete
donation after 1991 have the right at age 18 to establish if this is the
case. More and more parents realise that lying to their children is a
very poor basis for family life. And adult donor conceived people who
have found out about their conception are speaking out about their
feelings. "It's not the conception, but the deception that hurts", says
Bill Cordray, an American donor conceived man, about the harm secrecy
causes in undermining trust in families.
In 2003 the High Court ruled that in considering whether donor conceived
people who want more information, including the identity of their donors,
the provisions of the Human Rights Act (right to respect for private and
family life) have to be taken into account. "Respect for private and
family life requires that everyone should be able to establish details of
their identity as individual human beings," said the judge.
So donor anonymity is no longer needed as a protection from financial
claims. And the rights of donor conceived people to information about
their donor are being recognised. As in adoption, not all donor offspring
will want to meet their biological mother or father.
About half of all
adopted people want information about their birth family and a smaller
proportion go on to make contact. For some connection brings recognition
and a new sense of identity. For others it is disappointing. But for all
it brings a sense of relief and closure. At last I know.
Many adopted people leave searching for birth parents until after their
adoptive parents have died. They loved them and did not want to hurt them.
Although we do not as yet have enough evidence (past secrecy having
prevented research) it is likely that children conceived through donated
eggs and sperm will follow a pattern similar to those of adopted people.
Except that for most donor conceived people the choice about whether to
search or not will not be there.
It is highly unlikely that our daughter
will ever see her tall, blonde good looks reflected in another person,
unless she is lucky enough to make a connection through UK DonorLink. We
don't yet know how important this will be for her and her future. But we
do know from the very few adults who have found out who their donor is
(or 'was' in several cases) or those who have contacted half-siblings,
that this knowledge has made a significant difference to their lives,
even if they had not been unduly concerned about having been donor
conceived.
So the point of 'willing to be known' donors is to give choices to those
conceived with donated eggs or sperm, and in doing so to place the
emphasis on the needs of the offspring and responsibilities for thinking
about the long-term implications of what they are doing on would-be
parents and their advisors. Parents of course as part of their role have
to make important decisions on behalf of their children, but where adults
are protecting themselves or each other from the pain of acknowledging
infertility, it is very hard for them to be objective about what might be
in the interests of their children. Parents' short term anxieties and
children's long term needs do not necessarily coincide in this area. And
clinicians who suggest that parents should have the choice about whether
a donor should be 'willing to be known' or anonymous are also not
thinking about how any resulting child might feel when they discover that
their parents had a choice.
But what is good or not so good for families
is not a medical doctor's sphere of expertise. Brilliant clinicians do
not have the training or perspective of an expert in child and family
welfare. They may be very good at the science behind making babies but
this does not amount to a qualification to pronounce on issues that are
to do with the well-being of children and their parents.
The issue of whether moving to 'willing to be known' donors is likely to
deter men and women from donating is an important one. It is obviously
vital that sufficient donors come forward so that sperm donation is not
driven underground and those needing egg donation feel they have to go
abroad.
But the statement from the Liverpool clinicians in the Spring
2004 edition of the Infertility Network UK magazine, that 'The
psychological impact of a young person aged 18 approaching one in 18
years time, is quite psychologically daunting,' I would suggest is pure
projection of their own personal fears and fantasies. Any man or woman
who feels like this should not be donating!
Clinics need to be adapting their practice to recruit people who are
mature enough to be able to put themselves in the shoes of an infertile
couple and offer what is the most generous and valued charitable donation
of them all - the gift of life! But the fact that the donor is acting
altruistically to help others doesn't in any way diminish the
responsibilities that come with such an act. These responsibilities
include recognising that those conceived with the assistance of one's
donated gametes may have a wish to learn about their biological father or
mother. Other countries have managed to recruit 'willing to be known'
donors.
The UK cannot be so different from Australia, New Zealand, Sweden
and others. But it is true that clinics are going to have to work harder
to recruit these rather special people and some may decide that it is not
worth their while.
Change is always difficult. Everyone struggles with the new and
unfamiliar. And the transition time between old and new ways of doing
things is often a bumpy road. Contemplating conceiving a child with a
'willing to be known' donor may not feel comfortable for many for a
while. But pleased be assured that all the evidence from the sources that
matter - adult donor conceived people, older DC children brought up in
openness and their parents, child and family psychologists and family
counsellors - that sharing information with your child about their
origins and giving them the choice to have more information about and
know the identity of their donor, is the best possible decision you could
make for the well being of your whole family.
Olivia Montuschi
Founding Member Donor Conception Network
Counsellor: Parenting Educator and Trainer
