UK NGDT Chair Defends “Give a Toss” Sperm Donor Campaign

no. 349

The entire text is posted at this blog’s Annex.

Excerpts:

“The National Gamete Donation Trust (NGDT) has never believed that removal of anonymity in the UK caused the decline in sperm donor numbers. As we said in a previous BioNews commentary: 'It is important to remember that, with or without the removal of anonymity, there have never been enough gamete donors in the UK to meet the demand. One of the main problems continues to be lack of awareness' (BioNews, 7 August 2006).”

“We do not believe that this campaign affects the altruistic nature of donation, that is, the kindness of the kind man. No one will donate because they think our campaign is funny; only those who take the bait, read on and get the message. Potential sperm donors that contact the National Office receive a full information pack with practical, legal and medical information. Initial follow-up calls suggest that these men did get the message, and a substantial percentage have actually decided to go on and contact a clinic. Regardless of what message made the potential sperm donor contact a clinic or the NGDT, we believe a donor is a very special, caring and committed person.”

My Observations:

Laura and the folks at NGDT from what I have seen and read are truly trying to help those families looking to avail themselves of ART via donor conception. I have not seen any news pieces on the campaign as of yet here in the United States and I am quite curious what kind of reaction it would get.

Give A Toss: Further Reactions

no. 344

In response to my post 342 I received the following e-mail from Eric Blyth, who co-authored the BioNews commentary on the Give A Toss Campaign. I have published the full text of the commentary on the Annex as well as an earlier BioNews October 2006 commentary discussing earlier efforts at increasing the number of donors in the UK following the law change abolishing donor anonymity.

Hi Eric

We met in Toronto in 2005 at a conference organised by Diane Allen you may recall.

I am one of the authors of the BioNews commentary that is critical of the NGDT "Give A Toss" campaign.

I tried to contribute a comment on your blog, but it required a Google password that I don't have.

Clearly, we have different views on the "Give A Toss" campaign. Fair enough, it's a free world. Like you I don't believe the campaign set out to disrespect people, but that's what it does.

I was also sorry to see that you had chosen to repeat that assertion that:

"the switch disallowing donor anonymity in the UK resulted in a severe drop in men donating sperm for use by couples and individuals looking to conceive children."

"All" reports do not confirm this, as we pointed out in the BioNews Commentary.

Had you undertaken more thorough research before making your own comments you would have found otherwise.

We also drew attention to the work that has been undertaken in Manchester to recruit identifiable donors to positive effect.

Yours Sincerely
Eric Blyth CQSW BA MA PhD
Professor of Social Work
University of Huddersfield
Queensgate"

I will admit I am no expert in the determination that the law abolishing donor anonymity was the sole cause, the leading cause, or even a contributing factor in the drop in the number of UK donors. My printing the statement refered to was prompted by reactions I received from reading many UK news articles online (tabloid and mainstream media) and even the comments I believe from Richard's blog that no donors were to be found anywhere in Britian.

As for my views of the campain I believe I made it clear that while I was amused at the concept I had felt it was a risky venture and I recognized that the campaign could be / would be offensive to some. I also stated that it appeared that the NGDT took on this tack only because they felt alternative efforts were not working. The October 2006 BioNews commentary referred to above and in the current BioNews commentary the writers (Eric Blyth and Irene Ryll) apparently feel and point to proof that alternative do exist and have worked. Not being part of the NGDT I can't say how their decision was made to go ahead with Give A Toss just that they did and felt warranted to do so. I still think it was a gutsy move as they must have realized the possible impact.

In the last day since I posted my initial reactions to the Give A Toss campaign I traded emails with Olivia Montuschi of the Donor Conception Network as I wanted her reaction to the campaign and the site. In short her reaction was one of fear that the site and the NGDT campaign may have set back by years the work done (by the DCN, the NGDT and others) trying to erase the stigma of what donating is seen as, the view of donors, and consequently the view of donor conceived persons.

It is this last part of the equation that I worry about I guess. If the current campaign results in additonal or reinforced stigna attached to the persons created by the DI process it becomes a question of was it worth it. Certainly for the added families who end up conceiving a child the answer for them will be yes but again that looks at the whole puzzle from the parents perspective and not the individuals created.

I am not trying to walk both sides of the fence here ...I am only trying to think things out as they hit me. I am certainly no professional pundit but I also realize as one of the few individuals who focuses his writing on the topic of donor conception this blog keeps coming up on Google searches on the topic and that requires me to record my views honestly and to write responsibly.

NGDT's "Give a Toss" Sperm Donor Campaign

no. 342

The UK National Gamete Donor Trust has embarked on what is probably their most ambitious and most controversial campaign to recruit new sperm donors. The campaign titled "Give a Toss" linked here and above and as evidenced by the image quite racy and has been designed to obviously attract attention in markets they have not been able to reach previously with their message.

According to all reports the switch disallowing donor anonymity in the UK resulted in a severe drop in men donating sperm for use by couples and individuals looking to conceive children. This new campaign by the NGDT is another attempt to reverse that trend. The goal obviously using humor and sex is to bring men to the door and then to seriously discuss what it means to be a donor and the possibilities that their donations can provide couples.

As soon as I saw a link to the campaign site in Richard's blog I e-mailed Laura Witjens of the NGDT with my reactions and in her replies she herself noted that the campaign has stirred things up and already resulted in 46 registrations which may not translate into 46 donors but it represents a start. Laura indicated that 46 may seem a small number but that number is usually their best count for 2 to 3 weeks as compared to the much shorter period that this campaign has been active.

BioNews critiqued the campaign in a recent commentary where they felt that the campaign was tacky and only reinforces the negative image of sperm donation. I would expect that many of the donor conceived persons out there will have similar reactions and be quick to denounce the campaign. I do not believe the campaign was designed with any disrespect to donor conceived persons in any way. It may be interpreted that way and feelings may be hurt but I am sure the idea was solely the most expeditious way to get the message out as loudly as they could that there is a lack of donors.

I, myself, found the site in of itself quite humorous. The game and a few of the scrolling "facts" crossed a few lines farther than I would have dared but I think the NGDT is really trying to fulfill their mandate and believes it is time to take drastic measures to fulfill its goal of helping families affected by the lack of available donors. I believe the fact that they are trying to be inventive, even risking severe criticism, shows that the situation is dire from their perspective.

I wish the "Give a Toss" site had a more direct link to the more serious NGDT website as while the "Give a Toss" site is obviously tongue in cheek it may help to temper the reactions and remind men of why they are being asked to donate. The "facts" link has some info but could use a bit more but perhaps to do would have weakened the "shock" value of the overall concept.

For those individuals and entities that state there are better ways of attracting donors they should volunteer their time and efforts to the NGDT. From what I have seen, this campaign while risky, has been the best effort to date to attract widespread attention. Granted not all of it will be good, there will be some backlash, but as I was recently told when the canoe is already headed towards a waterfall you give its occupants the biggest paddle you can find and hope for the best.