Monday, September 25, 2006

More Letters to the Editor: Dilemmas and Dangers of Donor Conception

I have posted, on my Annex blog (linked above), copies of the letters published at the in tomorrow's, 9/26/06, edition.

The letters posted include that of two donor conceived individuals (including Rebecca Hamilton and Dr. Don Moody), a medical ethicist (Dr. Andrew Lawson) , and a leading rep of the Infertility Network UK (Sheena Young).

At this point by my count we have seen letters from all parties involved except that of the donors.

I am following this debate as it's interesting to see all sides. I don't expect anytime soon that donor anonymity will end here in the USA but if groups like the AATB and the ASRM start coming around to the base issues involved then perhaps serious legislation could be attempted.

Again I am not so much in favor of mandated abolition of donor anonymity but my primary concerns are more towards greater regulation and monitoring of the system we currently have to ensure the medical safety of the individuals created. That should be the primary issue in my mind. Yes the emotional is just as important but when I hear the stories of conditions and diseases that might have been caught due to screening limitations I cringe.

1 comment:

DD said...

I think some of the medical screening issues are a result of parents unwilling to accept the responsibilities that come with something that doesn't have a 100% guarantee. How can we expect to have a system that is all open donors to be w/o any screenable defects yet still keep this type of ART affordable? Just with preliminary counts from two different banks, only 10% of the donors are open. Even w/o the additional cost of screening, it's quite possible that instead of a sample costing say $500, it could push $5,000 to make up for the loss of anonymous donors. And when do you draw the line at what screens should be done? Yes, I agree if it's for the emotional sake of the child, but when someone starts to seek out punitive damage for a medical reason, there's something inheritantly wrong there.

There's no guarantee to any fertile couple that their child will be healthy throughout their lives. Why would those of us who are in the position to chose a donor expect an unattainable standard?

If we hope to improve the medical screening process of donors, then it certainly would not benefit the drive politically or financially to eliminate anonymous donors.