Thursday, September 21, 2006

Competing Rights: The Conceived vs The Infertile (A Continuing Debate)

An age old argument raised against the premise of abolishment of anonymous donors is that the rights of the Infertile parents trump the rights of the unborn yet to be conceived children. To say it politely this is rubbish. To deny however that the UK abolishment of anonymity greatly affected sperm donations in the UK is also fantasy.

Colin Campbell, the former and founding chairman of the British Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) from 1990-1994, has again raised the issue in today's (9/21/2006) TimesOnline.co.uk in a letter to the editor stating that the current policy is unfair to the infertile parents and their rights should be supreme. I think he's blind to reality that human beings are created that deserve more than this “be happy” you are alive argument. There are issues that must be addressed including the emotional well being and rights of the donor conceived and these issues should be paramount.

For new readers let me say I am not anti-DI. DI has given me two beautiful children and I would do it again if we could afford a third child. I am not pro-anonymity as I seen the results for some that were created via DI and will never have any knowledge of their biological and cultural past. I just believe there must be other ways to increase sperm donations than to imply that the human rights of the children are subservient and that anonymous donations are the cure. Max's Male Infertilty Awareness Campaign and the work of the National Gamete Donation Trust are examples of such good work. But more needs to be done.

I am sorry Mr. Campbell your argument just doesn't hold water. If you have another we'd be happy to hear it but this one is again simply rubbish and too easy to make.

3 comments:

Whosedaughter? said...

I absolutely AGREE Eric!! I posted about this on my blog as well.

-Karen

DD said...

Why are they not keeping all their options open by allowing banks to keep both anonymous and open donors as most banks do here in the States? I understand that some countries either eliminated anonymous donors or never allowed them in the first place, but why would they take such an extreme stand in the first place?

DI_Dad said...

DD - The answer is pretty much that these countries have determined that the rights of the donor conceived should be paramount. And that to allow further use of anonymous donors would not further support that belief. - Eric