Donor Insemination Sibling Search as Comedy?

no. 392

I am not making up the following plot line for a new comedy sitcome to be I guess broadcast on You tube.

Excerpts per the website Chortle (linked above):

"The plot concerns a brother and sister – played by comics Neil Edmond and Emma Fryer - who discover that their father was a prolific sperm donor and travel through Europe in search of their many siblings."

"The comedy, called Where are the Joneses?, features a five-minute episode every day, over a 12-week run."

"Viewers can then suggest scripts, plots or new characters for the show, which Baby Cow writers will incorporate into the story."

BBC 4 Radio: Should Parents Tell Their Children The Truth ?

no. 385

Text from the Program Site:

"Ministers have chosen not to include measures in the new draft Human Tissues and Embryos Bill that would require parents to tell children they are donor-conceived. But the British Association for Adoption and Fostering believes that if someone has been conceived with a sperm or a donor egg, they ought to know. Should parents be obliged to tell children the truth about their biological origins? We hear from Jo Rose, who was conceived from an anonymous sperm donation at Harley Street. She says it has had a profound affect on her life. Miriam O'Reilly also discusses the issue with Dr Allan Pacey from The British Fertility Society and Julia Feast of the British Association for Adoption and Fostering."

Thanks to Buffalo Girl at Whose Daughter for posting about this radio program discussing the current state of donor anonymity in the United Kingdom. Quite compelling. I first blogged about the decision to not require disclosure in the new darft bill back on May 21 linked here.

To link through to the 14 minute radio program interview link through the post title above.

Parents to Decide Over Secrecy of Sperm Donors Not Birth Certificates

no. 376


The Times Online ran a story on May 18th, linked here, reporting that parents will get to decide whether to tell their children that a sperm donor was used in their conception.

This conclusion is based on the UK Department of Health not including in its draft Human Tissue & Embryos Bill a provision requiring birth certificates to indicate if a child is donor gamete conceived.

The British Association of Adopting and Fostering ("BAAF")had as recently as May 17th called "for amendments to the draft Human Tissues and Embryos Bill to ensure donor-conceived children have access to fundamental information about their identity" via notation on each donor conceived child's birth certificate.

While anyone who reads this blog knows I am favor of openess / disclosure to a DCP of their origin I must admit I am not sure where to come down on the issue of a notation on a individual's birth certificate.

Where I fully understand the purpose of what BAAF is calling for as it would compel a parent to tell, I am concerned that such a mark would lead to secondary status. I would never want my child to be envious of a star belly sneetch or feel they are one and believe it to be mark of unequality. Sorry too much Dr. Seuss in our house this week. I have always been leery of government intruding on privacy issues and this idea scares me.

I also am not sure it is the place of the government to compel parents period. Yes I understand to not tell in effect violates the DCP's right to their own history etc. I also realize it is naive of me to expect all parents to automatically plan to tell but again I have issues with privacy and perceived government intrusion. Hard questions.

Manchester Evening News: Men Still Donating Sperm

no. 365

According to an article published in the UK on March 5, 2007:

"the first full-year figures from the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) since the change [in the law regarding donor anonymity] show a 6% rise in the number of men registering as donors.A total of 265 new sperm donors (of which 208 were based in the UK) were registered with the HFEA in the 12 months to 31 March last year."

The full article is presented on this blog's Annex as linked through the above post title.

All I can say is that the men I speak to on the DI Dads Yahoo Discussion Group seem to indicate that locating a clinic in the UK with an available donor pool with any choices is near to impossible. That tells me more than any statistical report.

Excerpted:

"HFEA chair Shirley Harrison said: "Many commentators continue to claim that the change in the law to remove anonymity for sperm and egg donors would lead to an immediate and steep fall in the number of donors."These new figures show that the predicted drop in sperm donor numbers is a myth.""

""NGDT chair Laura Witjens welcomed the increase but said the number of donors were still far short of the estimated 500 donors needed to meet demand. .... "The most important lesson that can be learned from this is that recruiting donors can be done," she said."

My wife is having another man's twins - and I could not be happier

no. 353

by MORAG TURNER
Daily Mail
Last updated at 23:42pm on 12th April 2007

"Richard and Sandra Woolven were looking forward to starting a family. But after a year of trying to conceive, they were horrified to learn that Richard had a zero sperm count, making it impossible for him to have children.

The couple, who live in Worcester, decided to have fertility treatment using a sperm donor. Now Sandra, 27, a sales manager, is 35 weeks' pregnant with twins. Here, Richard, 30, a software developer, talks about his mixed emotions as he approaches fatherhood... "

I will post the entire arrticle in this blog's Annex later today. For now the article is linked via the above title.

You can check out Richard's personal journey via his blog:
http://the-end-of-my-line.blogspot.com/

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.

Mandating Personal Moral Decisions as Law

no. 309

In today's on-line issue of the UK "Daily Mail" there is a report that it is a possibilty that female patients receiving IVF treatments (from what I assume to be state sponsored clinics) will no longer be required to demonstrate to the doctor that the patient has taken into account a child's need for a father figure. The full article is linked via the above post title.

As an American, who does not rely on socialized medicine the concept of proving one's intent or belief's to my physician is totally foreign to me. Yes I believe that if laws exist that qualify whether state monies can be used for specific procedures those laws must be respected. But if I disagree with those laws it is my right to vote for a legislator that shares my views with the hope of changing the offending law.

In my opinion there are certain choices of family lifestyle that are personal and I have no right to tell a person how to live. My blog is written to provide information on many sides of the DC debate. I made with my wife a choice and I support others to make their own choices. I only hope their choices are made with as much information as possible.