I posted on the Annex an editorial posted by the Albany Herald Democrat where the writer calls for the case brought by the inadvertent donor to be thrown out. The editorial restates the facts well enough but in short the plaintiff produced sperm intended to impregnate his girlfriend but the hospital mistakenly used it to impregnate a married woman who was expecting an anonymous donor's sperm. The plaintiff donor is suing I guess to establish whether he is in fact the biological parent of the child created. (I will admit I am not sure what the current status of this child is and whether it is still a enbryo, fetus, viable birth, or even been born yet).
The editorial is interesting mostly as I see it as it lays out all the various issues that may exist and the rights as seen by the writer.
If I was the husband of the woman mistakenly inseminated I would certainly be upset that this was not the “donor” we selected and be fearful of what rights if any this plaintiff would want.
The article speaks to the fact that the hospital offered a free abortion. Yes a loaded issue if there ever was one. Would I consider it. Yes. But to be honest the child would be one half from my wife and again not from me so biologically it would be the same issues as the donor of choice but not the one we chose. Try eplainig that to the child a few years down the road. Well we wanted half of you.
What happened was obviously a mistake and a mistake that apparently the facility has taken steps to now avoid again. No degree of sperm bank reform could forsee this as this was a localized event but I bet it's happened more often than we know. It certainly adds fuel to those that call for DI to be abolished.
No comments:
Post a Comment