"Inseminated People Given Same Rights As Adopted People" or "Why Wasn't This Law?"

[Seil]

Because the title is less descriptive than I'd hoped, the actual thing is that children who're born through anonymous sperm donors are now being given the same rights as children who're adopted.

Here's the article. (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/british-columbia/landmark-ruling-ends-sperm-and-egg-donor-anonymity-in-bc/article2028641/)

Now I dun know, 'cause I've never donated sperm, but I think that this is a good thing. A while back we talked about (http://nuklearforums.com/showthread.php?t=39144&) issues like adopted kids seeking their biological parents, and I've got to wonder why this wasn't law in the first place. Like I said, I've never donated sperm - which is an awesome thing, people who want kids being able to have them is awesome - but I thought that most people donated for the financial aspect rather than the altruistic aspect. I mean, you donate blood here in Canada, you're donating for a reason - lives will literally be saved thanks to your contribution. But sperm donation?

[TDK]

So reading the article basically this started because a girl conceived using donated sperm wanted to meet her father, and the doctor wouldn't give her the information because the donor wished to remain anonymous? And now the court is saying the girl is in the right?

That's a bunch of bullshit. You have every right to remain anonymous, just because you donate sperm - a fairly charitable act, monetary gains aside - doesn't mean you should have to deal with a kid down the line just because "I NEVAR MET MY REAL DADDY!!1!"

[Osterbaum]

It's a question of the rights of two people; the donors right not to get involved beyond donating sperm and the child's right to know who his biological father is. There's no (easy) answer to which right is more important.

You have every right to remain anonymous, just because you donate sperm - a fairly charitable act, monetary gains aside - doesn't mean you should have to deal with a kid down the line just because "I NEVAR MET MY REAL DADDY!!1!"
I mean, it might be easy for you or me to just claim I NEVER MET MY DADDY isn't a good enough reason but then again we aren't in that sort of situation.

[Fifthfiend]

That's a bunch of bullshit. You have every right to remain anonymous, just because you donate sperm - a fairly charitable act, monetary gains aside - doesn't mean you should have to deal with a kid down the line just because "I NEVAR MET MY REAL DADDY!!1!"

Phrasing the perfectly valid desire of a child to know something about / meet their biological father using poor spelling and multiple exclamation marks (and a number 1) certainly is an effective criticism.

I know that I for one have suddenly lost any sympathy for an uncertain young person maybe wanting to know a bit more about themselves and where they came from.

[Kim]

I will say if you donated the sperm under the assumption you were going to be anonymous, you should be able to remain anonymous. I think a better question going forward is whether people should be able to donate sperm under that assumption in the future. I could go either way on it.

[Bard The 5th LW]

I don't really know the best way to phrase why, but I support anonymity of the donor when they wish to stay anonymous. I suppose I can see why someone would want to know, but the choice to do it anonymously should be respected.

[Fifthfiend]

Anyway - I can certainly see where this could lead to bad results for a kid doing this, cause hey, there's a pretty good chance you're going to find out that your biological dad was... kind of a scuzzball. Or maybe a relatively okay guy who you just can't relate to at all, IDK. But as long as the people doing that are warned about it up front not to expect anything, then sure.

I guess I can maybe see where this would be uncomfortable for some guys, who maybe don't want someone turning up on their doorstep being like HEY I'M WHAT YOUR SPERM DONATION TURNED INTO, and I mean, it could certainly generally end up complicating things for the families that do this kind of thing, but I don't know if any of those possibilities constitute a valid reason to legally deny someone access to this information about their parent.

EDIT: and I think the article makes a good point that there are also some pretty valid health reasons for knowing who your biological parent is; someone needing information about their risk for medical conditions or searching for a bone marrow donor or some shit shouldn't need to die just because someone's uncomfortable with knowing where their sperm ended up.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

I totally support the right to remain anonymous. Your biological parent is pretty meaningless as n entity and certainly not enough to override their right to not have any contact. Doubly so if they gave under the assumption that they couldn't be contacted.
If the law was changed so donors couldn't get guaranteed anonymity nd if that was the case I would be ok with it, I'm not particularly strong eith way, but I wouldn't like this to happen for two reasons- 1) The point above and 2) You would lose sperm donors by the bucketload.

[rpgdemon]

Also, isn't it kind of a huge slight to all sorts of non-biological parents, adopted kids themselves, and gay couples who have a kid to say, "Nah, the person bringing you up is MEANINGLESS. You should only care about the guy whose sperm you had"?

[Fifthfiend]

You would lose sperm donors by the bucketload.

I would find this at best extremely speculative even if the linked article didn't say that other countries which have banned anonymous donations have generally experienced a dropoff followed by an increase back to previous levels.

Also, isn't it kind of a huge slight to all sorts of non-biological parents, adopted kids themselves, and gay couples who have a kid to say, "Nah, the person bringing you up is MEANINGLESS. You should only care about the guy whose sperm you had"?

That highly exaggerated strawman argument would indeed be a huge slight, if anyone were saying it, which nobody is.

[Bard The 5th LW]

EDIT: and I think the article makes a good point that there are also some pretty valid health reasons for knowing who your biological parent is; someone needing information about their risk for medical conditions or searching for a bone marrow donor or some shit shouldn't need to die just because someone's uncomfortable with knowing where their sperm ended up.

If its a health issue then the law totally shouldn't matter at all. If someone is in danger then totally track down their parent for health records. If its just for sake of knowing who your parent is, but they don't want you to know them, then keep them incognito.

[rpgdemon]

That highly exaggerated strawman argument would indeed be a huge slight, if anyone were saying it, which nobody is.

Not really. It's kind of the same thing, saying, "If you don't know who your biological parents are, you're missing out on this important thing", and saying that your parents raising you don't mean much if you don't know who your biological parents are. Both are just wrong statements to make.

[Krylo]

EDIT: and I think the article makes a good point that there are also some pretty valid health reasons for knowing who your biological parent is; someone needing information about their risk for medical conditions or searching for a bone marrow donor or some shit shouldn't need to die just because someone's uncomfortable with knowing where their sperm ended up.

All (should be, in most cases) on file, except the donor thing. In which case, yeah maybe a doctor could contact the biological father. They test for all kinds of congenital diseases and what not before using the sperm.

I don't see where this compares to adoption though. It's an entirely different ball park. If you were adopted your biological parents actually conceived you, maybe one or both of them had reasons beyond just not wanting a child, for putting you up for adoption.

With sperm donation it's usually just some guy wanted the fifty bucks. In cases where that ISN'T true, it's a situation where the family raising the child knew the donor, anyway.

There's no reason besides health that the anonymity should be compromised. And the only time health becomes a reason, with all the tests that you have to have available when you donate sperm, is when you need a transplant. And for some reason your biological sperm donor father is the only person available.

Beyond all that, you also have to consider that one donation can make anywhere from 10-20 kids. It seems pretty unfair to expect some guy who donated sperm once to deal with 10-20 people showing up at his doorstep, potentially complicating the fuck out of his life, just for that.

I just have to seriously question why anyone would need to know this badly enough to compromise someone else's right to anonymity.

[Kim]

Not really. It's kind of the same thing, saying, "If you don't know who your biological parents are, you're missing out on this important thing", and saying that your parents raising you don't mean much if you don't know who your biological parents are. Both are just wrong statements to make.

BUT NOBODY IS SAYING EITHER OF THOSE THINGS

The only thing that's being said is that if a kid wants to know who their biological parent is, which is a totally understandable thing to want to know, they have a right to find out. That's it. That's all of it. We're not offering any commentary on whether it's a need-to-know thing, except to the extent that it could be useful regarding health stuff, which it would be.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

I would find this at best extremely speculative even if the linked article didn't say that other countries which have banned anonymous donations have generally experienced a dropoff followed by an increase back to previous levels.

It also mentions those are all paid donation states which is a completely different model- you are relying in part on people's greed as well as on their charity, compared to a system where they are entirely based on charity.
Surely these examples are not really applicable..
I acnowledge it is completely speculative but it is something that should be considered and beyond using examples which are equally speculative in their applicabilty.

Re the health thing- surely donors have full and extensive medical checks and all that information is on the file. Lie if they need to find their donor for some health reason their is no way they should be stopped but that is a different case and most of that could be solved by having health information of the donor on the file.

And I still don't now why the child's right to know trumps the parents right to privacy.

[Krylo]

which is a totally understandable thing to want to knowWhy?

Again: Health stuff should mostly be available without compromising anonymity of the donor.

So why is it an understandable thing to want to know? At least to the extent that this over rides someone else's understandable want to remain anonymous to a child that he (or she, there are egg donors too) had absolutely nothing to do with at any point beyond going to a medical facility and donating reproductive cells to give an infertile couple the chance at having a child/to get some quick cash.

Edit: It wouldn't even be a thing except that these people donated under the promise of anonymity. If such a promise wasn't made, it wouldn't be an issue, just an understood extra thing that can happen when you donate sperm. As it wasn't, it's unfair to the donors to expect them to deal with the loss of anonymity.

[Fifthfiend]

saying that your parents raising you don't mean much if you don't know who your biological parents are. Both are just wrong statements to make.

This second statement being, again, an exaggerated strawman argument that nobody is actually making.

Why don't you try coming up with an argument that someone might actually make, and base your views on that instead?

Like for example

"hey parents who raised me, I totally love and respect both of you, but would also like to know who my birth father is"

Huh look at that, that is totally understandable and not at all objectionable.

So why is it an understandable thing to want to know? At least to the extent that this over rides someone else's understandable want to remain anonymous

I am pretty sure Noncon already agreed with your view that these fathers should be allowed to remain anonymous, which, while not a viewpoint I agree with, is also not a viewpoint that anyone needs to agree with hugely unsympathetic and wildly exaggerated fictions about the people asking for this information to arrive at.

[Kim]

So why is it an understandable thing to want to know? At least to the extent that this over rides someone else's understandable want to remain anonymous to a child that he (or she, there are egg donors too) had absolutely nothing to do with at any point beyond going to a medical facility and donating reproductive cells to give an infertile couple the chance at having a child/to get some quick cash.

I was explaining what the argument was, because RPG was strawmanning it like hella to the max. Also: I wasn't commenting on whether their desire to know over rides the donor's desire for anonymity, in fact I argued earlier on that if they did it under the assumption of anonymity they should be able to keep said anonymity. I was explaining what the argument was. That's all. Because did you seriously read what RPG was saying? It was pretty ridic.

@Fifth: I'm kinda either way on whether donation should be anonymous. I need more time to think on it, and will probably keep reading people's arguments on the matter. I'm just saying that the ones who did donate under the premise that it would be anonymous shouldn't be forced to lose their anonymity for whatever reason. It's a breach of contract, basically. You can argue whether or not they should be anonymous from this point forward, but I think arguing against their right to something they were told they would have going into this isn't exactly fair.

[Fifthfiend]

Look maybe you guys support anonymity for these guys who need to hide the fact that they're CHILD HATING SERIAL KILLERS, but

[Krylo]

I was explaining what the argument was, because RPG was strawmanning it like hella to the max. Also: I wasn't commenting on whether their desire to know over rides the donor's desire for anonymity, in fact I argued earlier on that if they did it under the assumption of anonymity they should be able to keep said anonymity. I was explaining what the argument was. That's all. Because did you seriously read what RPG was saying? It was pretty ridic.

Agreed, and I know.

The why was directed more at anyone in general than just you.

I don't see it, again, with health records on file, as being more than a curiosity thing. And a person's curiosity shouldn't over ride another person's right to privacy by itself.

I don't know about Canada, maybe they don't keep good health records on file or test for everything, but in the US there's a whole bunch of stuff tested for on donors before they're accepted, as regulated by the FDA.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

And if the problem is health, just institute health tests on donor, put that on file. problem solved.

[Kim]

I think the main thing I'm just not sure about is whether knowing where your DNA comes from is really a right. I mean, I can totally understand there being kids out there who want to know, but wanting something does not imply an inherent right to something, especially when that right comes at the expense of someone else. I'm honestly in favor of anonymous donation, so I just kinda lean towards anonymity in general with stuff like this.

[Karrrrrrrrrrrresche]

I will say if you donated the sperm under the assumption you were going to be anonymous, you should be able to remain anonymous. I think a better question going forward is whether people should be able to donate sperm under that assumption in the future. I could go either way on it.

I agree there, I'd see this as a worthwhile precedent in the future but lots of sperm donors did so explicitly with the understanding they'd be anonymous. Retroactively taking that away seems a bit too far for my taste.
Even with that in mind I'd still think that the anonymous donation system works in my eyes, a child might want to know and maybe given enough time the biological father could be given the option to agree to a meeting, but I don't think the doctors should ever just be handing the information out to the kids because they ask.

[rpgdemon]

BUT NOBODY IS SAYING EITHER OF THOSE THINGS

The only thing that's being said is that if a kid wants to know who their biological parent is, which is a totally understandable thing to want to know, they have a right to find out. That's it. That's all of it. We're not offering any commentary on whether it's a need-to-know thing, except to the extent that it could be useful regarding health stuff, which it would be.

The whole argument is whether it's a need to know thing though, as far as I can see.

If someone donates anonymously, with the understanding that they will remain anonymous, you should only break that confidence when it is a need to know case. As I see it then, is that if you break the anonymousy of the donator, it is because it's a need to know situation. And to say that the child -needs- to know their biological father, to the point that you break the anonymous contract that they signed, is indeed a slight to the person that raised them. And from what I read, that's what the ruling is saying.


Edit: It's not even like I have -any- reason to be invested in this at all, so the "strawman" arguments that I gave were actually just terrible logic and terribly worded. I'm just saying that it seems like the law is saying that this -is- a need to know thing for children, such that they're breaking a contract and possibly upsetting people who thought that they'd donate anonymously.

[Kim]

There's a difference between need-to-know and right-to-know.

[rpgdemon]

Does it functionally matter though? Either way, it becomes a case of stressing the importance of a biological parent. Like, if your biological parent is some completely random person who you've never met before, does your right to know who they are make any difference in your life? I don't think that it matters that much who donated sperm that created you, insofar as it just means that you'd point out a random person and make them possibly feel uncomfortable. To go further to make that into a right would attach arbitrary meaning to a biological parent, even one who you've never had any interaction with in your life.

[Amake]

I'm usually all for the rights of children, and if Good Will Hunting is any indication not having any parents can be a pretty traumatizing thing for a child that should be alleviated if possible. But I really don't see the point of this. You wanna know who your "real daddy" is? He's a guy who didn't mind jerking himself off in order to make fifty bucks. That's the entire scope of his involvement in your creation and your existence. That's not something I think you should need as the basis of a personal relationship. It's not someone who should be important to you.

I find it sad if anyone thinks whose gametes became their zygote should influence who they are as a person. I had imagined the certainty that they don't is why we have anonymous sperm donation rather than artificial family generation.

[Hatake Kakashi]

Out of curiosity, does Canada not have anything similar to the HIPAA (http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/hipaa/understanding/index.html) laws in the US? I'm not certain, but if something like that happened down here, I imagine lawsuits would quickly be filed. I'm fairly certain such things would violate the act.

[Gregness]

This may be the dirty leftist classical liberalism I've learned in college, but this seems fairly simple to me.

The child's right to know their gene donors (as far as such a right exists) ends at the point where it conflicts with the rights of others. In this case, the right of the father to remain anonymous as per his wishes. As far as medical history is concerned doctors should easily be able to extract that information from existing records without revealing this information to the child. Medical professionals deal with confidential information all the time and there's no reason this needs to be significantly different. So, pretty much what Krylo has been saying I guess.

[pochercoaster]

Beyond all that, you also have to consider that one donation can make anywhere from 10-20 kids. It seems pretty unfair to expect some guy who donated sperm once to deal with 10-20 people showing up at his doorstep, potentially complicating the fuck out of his life, just for that.


Sounds like some B movie.

Beyond medical conditions which, as others have pointed out, is kept on file at the time of the donation, there doesn't seem to be a good enough reason to infringe on someone else's privacy. The donor is barely involved in the process...

Dumb question: Do donors know if/when their sperm is given to someone? What if a 20 year old donates his sperm, lives for another 20 years and meets a 20 year old hottie who's into old dudes? >_> (My parents are 21 years apart. It's possible! >_>)

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Sitcom waiting to happen!

[Kerensky287]

I can understand that a child born by sperm donor might want to know who their biological father is, but the interests of the father matter too. Perhaps there should be a little tick-box saying "Yes, I wish to remain anonymous to any people who are technically my offspring in the future"?

Because there are probably a lot of people who are okay with making 50 bucks, but not okay with knowing that they have a kid. It's the "maybe" aspect that makes a lot of difference to some people.

Like, you go donate some sperm, you walk out, cool. Maybe they never use it. Maybe there's nobody out there who ends up being related to you. Maybe there is, but you don't know. It's not terribly important to you. But what if, some day, a kid shows up saying "Hey, you're my daddy"? Suddenly you've got parental instincts kicking in, you feel a heaping helping of responsibility toward the kid that may or may not be necessary, and you might be in the situation where finding out you're a parent is REALLY not something you need at the time.

The argument can be made for kids learning information about their biological parent - stuff like the parent's job, their interests, that sort of thing, to help make an emotional connection even if a personal one is not possible - but even then, I can imagine that you'd have some stalkerkids who devote their lives to finding out EVERYTHING about their fathers and doing the best they can to meet them in the end.

Assuming this sort of child has had a good upbringing - (a) parent(s) that did not neglect them, for example - I'm not sure why it'd be necessary, outside of interest reasons, for the child to know their biological father, and I can think of many reasons why the father's identity shouldn't necessarily be allowed to be given to the child.

[Magus]

I don't think they could legally retroactively lift anonymity but going forward they would just have to not promise anonymity for donors. In which case it's not going to help anybody currently the product of anonymous artificial insemination, but would in the future.

If the new decision does retroactively take away anonymity I'd say it's a wrong move.

[Krylo]

I also don't think the judge was right in comparing it to adoptions.

In an adoption someone else gave birth to you and then decided to give you away. This can have an effect on a child's emotional state. They can be left wondering why their original parents didn't love them. Why they didn't keep them. Etc. etc.

There's a lot of very valid questions that an adopted child might want to ask their biological parents, that could even impact their psychological health if they can't.

The same isn't true of a sperm or egg donor. You aren't left wondering why mommy and daddy didn't love you and shipped you off to some other family. Because that never happened.

[Raiden]

Serious Part:

Honestly, I'm for keeping the anonymity of the donor. There's tons of reasons why someone would want to donate sperm, whether financial or charitable or any other reasons that would cause them to go through all the testing required to put your sperm in a tub. Maybe someone who knows he has no intent to ever have kids decided to put his man-goo to man-good use and help others have kids if they needed it, or if a man ALREADY HAS A FAMILY and just did it for some extra bucks. If they signed up to remain anonymous, then they never intend to hear about the donation after the exchange has been done. And suddenly a decade or so later, they're told their child is now showing up.

Now, there is never a "Oh, you're my dad? Cool, I'll go back to never seeing you again". If a kid went out of their way to find you, they'll likely want to have you included in their life. Which, ultimately, most donors won't want.

Yes, full medical records and histories SHOULD be on file, so if something comes up they can go back and check (though from what I've heard of the testing process, if you DO have a strong trend of genetic illness in your family the banks won't take your donation so that's really not that huge a problem).

For a compromise? If a child is truly interested, have them ask the bank. The bank can then send a message to the donor and see if he would like to meet the child. If he says no, then that's the end of the exchange. The answer had been given, and frankly the child will just have to accept that.


Sarcasm part:

Honestly, the bigger problem is hoping the kid doesn't grow up to be into older men while their father is a cradle robber.

[Lumenskir]

What hath The Kids Are All Right wrought?
What if a 20 year old donates his sperm, lives for another 20 years and meets a 20 year old hottie who's into old dudes? >_>
Honestly, the bigger problem is hoping the kid doesn't grow up to be into older men while their father is a cradle robber.
Ugh, late-era Scrubs flashback.

[Premmy]

Why?

The only reasons I can come up with involve personal philosophy or religion(not mine, exactly, but just those topics)
Being of the mind that it has some significance to your cosmic place in the universe and all that jazz. Which, of course I don't think the law should have any say in, but there's a suggestion for why someone might want to know on a level that's neither medical or child-relationship development/parentally related.

[Seil]

Link (http://www.theprovince.com/health/your+daddy+Donors+kids+want+know/6155205/story.html)

People're fightin' the bill:

The B.C. government was in court Tuesday seeking to overturn a ruling that paves the way for people born through anonymous sperm donors to find out information about their parents.

Two such people born in B.C. - Olivia Prat-ten and Shelley Deacon - filed affidavits arguing that their rights were violated because they couldn't get access to the information.

In May last year, B.C. Supreme Court Justice Elaine Adair struck down as unconstitutional provisions of the Adoption Act.

The judge noted that the law allows adopted children to access information about their birth parents but not those conceived through sperm donors.

Adair suspended her ruling for six months to give the government a chance to amend the Adoption Act.

But instead of passing a new law, the government appealed the ruling.

Two government lawyers appeared in the B.C. Court of Appeal on Tuesday claiming that the trial judge made a number of errors.

The thing is... they're still arguing about it. I'll try to find more info as I go on, but I retain my previous viewpoint... which Fifth summed up nicely:

Phrasing the perfectly valid desire of a child to know something about / meet their biological father using poor spelling and multiple exclamation marks (and a number 1) certainly is an effective criticism.

I know that I for one have suddenly lost any sympathy for an uncertain young person maybe wanting to know a bit more about themselves and where they came from.

Though here is a link to the rights of sperm donors, if anyone wants to know. (http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/sperm-donor-parental-rightsobligations.html)

[Magus]

All I can say is they may end up facing a shortage of sperm donors if it passes.

[ZARAK]

What bothers me is the deliberate sexism of these kinds of legislation and the arguments surrounding it, which most people won't give a second thought about. Why is it only male donors are being targeted? What about the women who donate their eggs (which carry greater compensation, by the way)? Doesn't anyone want to track down their biological mothers? Can't go 'round having those unexpected Oedipus incidents, right?

What if the child is produced from the genetic samples of two donors? Then what? The courts move in to hit these people up for back child support? I wouldn't be surprised if that's the direction they're headed in.

[Magus]

What bothers me is the deliberate sexism of these kinds of legislation and the arguments surrounding it, which most people won't give a second thought about. Why is it only male donors are being targeted? What about the women who donate their eggs (which carry greater compensation, by the way)? Doesn't anyone want to track down their biological mothers? Can't go 'round having those unexpected Oedipus incidents, right?

What if the child is produced from the genetic samples of two donors? Then what? The courts move in to hit these people up for back child support? I wouldn't be surprised if that's the direction they're headed in.

The law so far protects donors from having to pay child support...presuming they went through a licensed fertility clinic, since apparently here in PA they forced a man who donated his sperm to a married couple outside of the actual channels to pay support for the child after the married couple divorced and the woman went to court about it (really got to examine the character of this woman in forcing the donor to pay the child support, but I guess desperate people do desperate things if they can get away with it). But fortunately most of the states consider the contracts signed to waive these rights/obligations valid along as they're notarized and such.

Regarding your first point, there probably are donor egg babies who have wanted to know who their biological mother is, and I'm guessing somebody will raise that point soon enough (if this legislation passes, which is a big if), and it would be added. BUT, if there is a shortage of donor egg babies wanting to know their biological mothers, I can only surmise it is due to a similar psychology that makes them want to know who their "real" father is--their surrogate mother carried them and raised them and so it must not occur to them that they "need" to know their biological mother, whereas with their biological father they somehow needed to know...maybe these were single surrogate mothers and they don't have any father figure to look at as a father? I dunno. Each individual would probably be different, with different reasons. One would think their adoptive father would be "good enough" but there may be myriad emotions and so on involved...and it may be simply "I'm satisfied with my parents but just curious because of physiological issues".