Listening to DI and DE Moms: NYC Gathering

Last night I attended an installment of the NYC Gathering's dinner get-togethers here in Manhattan. The group organized by Sara Axel of the blog "Our Story Begins at Home" usually is attended by women who either used donor eggs, donor sperm, or both conceiving their children. I was the only dad in the room.

Last night the dinner had Wendy and Ryan Kramer as special guests. Both had been in town for an SMC event held in Brooklyn this past weekend. The featured topic discussed by Wendy and Ryan was "Who's Your Mommy? Should they tell their twins they came from donor eggs?".

The identity issue is wholly mixed together with the disclosure issue so both topics were discussed and brought up by the roughly ten women in attendance. I sat at the far end of the table as I have a bad cold plus I had the kids with me as the dinner was immediately after their school extended day pickup. I also heard the common theme that some of the husbands did not want the kids to know their conception stories more it seemed to their discomfort than the interests of the kids.

The moms in discussing the "Who's your mommy?" questioned the differences in connections to the donor when the mom carried the fertilized eggs producing their children. The fears of feeling less of a natural parent. Overall an interesting evening and I was sorry I felt like garbage and that I had to leave early.

Debate: One Donor 150 Offspring

In the past week the NY Times ran a piece titled "One Donor 150 Children". That article can be found here.

The TODAY show the next day ran a video segment about the article speaking with Wendy Kramer of the Donor Sibling Registry from her home in Colorado and an in studio guest bio-ethicist. Both woman are moms to donor conceived children.

The ensuing debate has lead to a NY Times on-line debate among ten parties associated with the industry or interested groups. I encourage everyone to read the debate HERE and come back and let me know what you think. I was struck how of all the experts and individuals only one parent was asked for their opinion and that was Wendy Kramer. The doctor who contributes was the doctor that helped my wife and I conceive our kids.

Wendy's op-ed contribution was co-written with Naomi R. Cahn a law professor at George Washington University and the author of “Test Tube Families: Why the Fertility Market Needs Legal Regulation.” Their piece suggested a three prong approach at regulation, (1) required data base and tracking by the industry of donors, births, etc, (2) limnitation on the number of children that can be born from a single donor, and (3) limited disclosure of a donor's identity (i.e. reconsidering the practice of donor anonymity).

I must admit of the debate I have read so far I am amazed how some of the writers can't look beyond the donor industry and insurance company point of view and the truth of the numbers to focus on what is best for the offspring. Yes people will find limitations put before them in their quest to have a family but as a parent I think looking back, if successful, the speed bumps reform will bring will be recognized for the greater benefiit it provides society and the offspring.

My Full Review of "Donor Unknown" - A Must See

This morning I posted my initial reactions to the new indie film “Donor Unknown” that premiered this week at the Tribeca Film Festival. Now I am posting my second set of reactions based on notes I took while watching the film. Overall I am still very impressed by the movie. I have questions though, comments and observations. Spoiler alert as I am discussing specifics of the movie.

Lies re Not Telling

Sibling Daniele Pagano stated in the film that her parents did not tell her until she was 13 that she was donor conceived and she was angry at being lied at. I wished the film had explored those emotions further. Also of the six siblings we met, was Daniele the only sibling whose parents were a heterosexual couple? I think of the main five siblings she was but I was not sure. No direct effect on the movie’s premise of the siblings finding each other and finding and meeting their donor Jeffrey Harrison but still a fact I was interested in.

Dating Half Siblings

I was happy that the movie addressed Rachel’s concerns of dating a half sibling or blood relative. It is a valid concern of both the donor conceived individual and of their parents. Especially when as Wendy Kramer explained in the film that the “limits” promised by the sperm banks is not enforced and as she demonstrated by example that unrelated Donor 1476 had 58 offspring. Again not directly affecting the movie’s premise but was glad they addressed and brought out this issue.

Donation Rooms

When we started the process of choosing donors the first donor we used was from California Cryobank. We looked at both California and Fairfax as recommended by the clinic we were then working with. Cappy Rothman’s stroll from as he stated “Masterbation Room” to room was very creepy. Did he really say that or a variation of that? I don’t think the donor conceived or prospective parents really needed to see the pornographic images. I am glad the film makers showed it as he stated it but in reality these were images that these parties just really don’t want in our memories.

Donor Remuneration

Certainly the issue of donors being paid for their sperm was noted when Jeffrey Harrison, Donor 150, admitted that for years his payments helped him pay the rent. Although in his case I was happier to know the money paid his rent as opposed to your standard college student who uses the money to supplement their beer money. Jeffrey Harrison certainly appeared to have altruistic intentions mixed with his realization that this was an easier pay day than many jobs out there.

Donor Fantasies and Realities

Jeffrey Harrison as a donor and as a human being is certainly one of those people as he described that lives on the fringe of society. A self described fringe monkey. He seems like a man who honestly believes in truth (as he sees it) and living his life as a free spirit. The reactions to him by the siblings was compassionate and interested. Certainly it was clear that at least one sibling had no desire to meet him and felt that the contact initiated was enough to answer her questions. The honesty of the siblings as to whom they expected their donor would be was typical as I expect of all donor conceived fantasies of who and what their donor might be. In truth reality might now live up to expectations. This movie made that clear. But as a man this man helped bring these individuals together and his willingness to step forward is a gift.

Welcome to the Family

At this point my children refer to their half siblings as their brother and sister just as many of the movie’s siblings have decided to do. The amateur genealogist in me loved the chart that JoEllen put together showing the inter-family relationships that the Donor 150 siblings have to each other. It’s amazing to watch how quickly these young people seem to bond. Granted the movie condenses its presentation of the time these siblings found each other and the development of these relationships. The scene of four of the 14 known siblings in either Ryan or Roxanne’s California home was fun to watch.

I also enjoyed the scene where Fletcher’s mom states she is not yet into the new reality of the expanding family her son is now part of and that she is being drawn into. Her statement that Jeffrey must earn his place in the family is something I believe every parent (bio or social) immediately connects to but in reality the acceptance of Jeffrey, or any donor found, is up to the donor conceived individual’s and the parents will be dragged into accepting it or at least dealing with it.

The movie “The Kid’s Are All Right” demonstrated how the kid’s brought their donor into their home’s front door. The crazy affair entered into by Julianne Moore and Mark Ruffalo played more into the fantasy / horror that some parties have of what could happen if a donor is contacted and found. That story line was interesting as it played out like many movie play out infidelity fears and its effect on families. It just played with a same sex marriage being betrayed by one of its spouses. It was at that point that it was no longer a donor conception movie to me and destroyed any short term and possibly long term contact those teenagers might have had with their donor.

The images of Jeffrey riding bikes with JoEllen, Fletcher, and I believe Roxanne were great fun. I admit I did wonder whether this was suggested by one of the siblings or Jeffrey or perhaps the film makers.

In this movie, it is clear that a few of the siblings will maintain continued contact with Jeffrey and it is unclear if the others will or will not. It was also interesting and a bit sad at the end, after the siblings departed, when Jeffrey commented that it is “back to the birds” and that he still had his puppies.

In Summary

Overall I liked the movie and as I stated in my first post I think the movie did what it set out to do. It introduced us to how the siblings found each other (thanks to Wendy and Ryan once again for the DSR) and their first meeting with their donor. The courage of Jeffrey to step forward in reaction to the initial NY Times story must be applauded. Certainly not every donor would. His actions are the exception. His statement that it is the right of the [donor conceived] to meet or not should be the norm. The movie Donor Unknown should not be missed as it is a great step forward in addressing the underlying issues and putting real faces to the stories. Does it FULLY address and delve deeply into the hard core issues of anonymous donors, donor remuneration, cryobank screening of donors? No, but it brings the issues to the surface. It is not some cutesy romantic comedy / melodrama using donor conception as a prop to sell movie tickets claiming it is groundbreaking movie making. This movie stars the real kids and they were all right.

My Daddy's Name is Donor: A Promised Posting of a Response

Since Family Scholar's published their study entitled "My Daddy's Name is Donor" there have been a number of articles written about it as well as commentary debating its merits by both sides of the aisle. Most of the main stream press have written stories that this is the first major study of its kind. To my understanding it is not.

After I commented on the BioNews article / response written by Eric Blythe and Wendy Kramer I received a few comments from Elizabeth Marquardt and Karen Clark, co authors of the original study. I promised that when Ms. Marquardt had posted her response to the BioNews piece I would link to it at a minimum.

The Family scholars response can be found here. I want to read it again but the anology that one side sees the world as a glass half full while the other sees the glass as half empty is interesting. I think characterizing the sides this simply is an over-generalization.

Overall I still believe couples should have the right to make their own decisions regarding the creation of their families. I do think the rights of the children created should be respected and that prospective parents should be made aware of all the issues surrounding donor conception. Greater regulation is needed but such regulation should not be created / promulgated by the industry itself.

As a Dad I try not to push my kids at their young ages into discussing their thoughts about being donor conceived but I must admit I am very very curious to know more what they think.

BioNews Comment: “Read With Caution” Response to “My Daddy’s Name is Donor” Study

I learnd via Facebook today that a response to the Institute for American Values study “My Daddy’s Name is Donor” was published online at BioNews.org and within BioNews 567. The response published under their “Comment” section was written by Professor Eric Blyth and Wendy Kramer (co-founder of the DSR), two individuals whose work in this area I highly respect.

The review starts out by declaring their “alignment with the authors' desire to acknowledge donor-conceived people's right to access their ancestral, genetic and biological background” but then launches into “serious misgivings” they saw with the report. It is a short read and well worth it for anyone serious enough to want to acknowledge alternative viewpoints and/or criticism, something the IAV rarely seems to acknowledge themselves from my own experiences with their website.

I have stated before that one of the author’s of the IAV piece I consider a friend, Ms. Karen Clark, as I have long admired her blog and her discussions of these topics. But overall I find the “misgivings” posed in the BioNews comment to be serious enough to question the IAV study and to echo the sentiments to "read it with caution”.

TV Planner: Oprah Feb 8 Episode re Donor Conception

On February 8th the Oprah Winfrey Show expects to run a show to be taped this week titled "The Ultimate Reunion: When Dad is a Sperm Donor". Wendy and Ryan Kramer were involved in the show in so far as putting individuals who matched through the Donor Sibling Registry in touch with the producers and they themselves will be at the show.

According to Wendy, the Oprah folks, in November, went and filmed a meeting between two adult donor conceived half siblings that met via the DSR and is flying these individuals to Chicago for the show. The show is also expected to include two donors (each listed on the DSR), one of whom who has met with offspring and the other who hasn't. Wendy also indicated on a Yahoo DSR posting that a few adult donor conceived individuals are expected to be part of the show as well.

A few posters to the DSR Yahoo Group commented that they hope the show will also address the disappointment that is also common to donor conceived individuals and their familes who have never found a match.

It does not sound like the show will address any feelings or thoughts from the perspective of a dad like me but still I hope to watch it on tape when I get home that day or a delayed broadcast from another networj that carries the show.