Sperm donation | Should donors' anonymity be protected?

  The Boston Globe reports on November 23, 2008 of rising demands for release of donor information from sperm banks so that children may identify their fathers. Sperm donation has traditionally been cloaked with anonymity, but many young people now challenge that. The Globe reports a growing debate about whether donors should be allowed to remain anonymous. At the center of the debate are organization such as the Donor Sibling Registry, an online entity that has helped over 5,900 people conceived by sperm donation with their half siblings or with the donors themselves. Thus, the debate revolves around who has greater rights--the donors who want to be anonymous or the children who want to know more about their fathers.

Sperm banks are the primary proponents of anonymity, arguing that if they are not allowed to protect the privacy of donors, supplies of donor sperm with decrease dramatically. One might question the sperm banks’ motives. Is this a genuine desire to protect privacy or is there a profit motive? Earlier this month, a top British medical journal reported that after England decided to ban anonymity in 2005, once-plentiful supplies of sperm are running so low that some clinics report two-year waits.

The entire Globe article, The search for DGM 2598 | More children of anonymous sperm donors want to know who fathered them here. A once-time registration may be required.

Comments

[Jeanne M Hannah]

Hello Allen,

You are correct. Michigan has not addressed this issue in the legislature.

I believe that you have a valid point and that balancing the need of the child to know against the privacy rights of the donor is a good approach. If, for example a child experiences some kind of health problem -- needs a kidney transplant, for example -- wouldn't it be a good thing if that child could find his biological father and could follow the trail to some other children sired by the same sperm in search for a match and a successful transplant? It might save a life. I say that saving the child's right trumps privacy. Jeanne Hannah

[Allen Hoorn]

I have been scouring the MCL to try and determine what the law in Michigan says on this matter. Unfortunately, it seems that our legislature hasn't quite come up with anything yet on the subject. Am I wrong in this assessment of the state of the laws in Michigan with regards to anonymity?

If I was forced to wiegh in on this issue from a logical standpoint, I would say that a child's right to know the identity of an anonymous sperm donor should only outweigh the right of the sperm donor to privacy in cases where infringing the donor's right would produce indisputable and immediate benefit to the child. Of course, I am just a student, so that is my opinion and not necessarily a valid legal argument.

[ml66uk]

According to HFEA figures, the numbers of sperm donors have gone *up* in the two years since the ending of anonymity, thus reversing a three year decline. The 307 donors in 2006 was 48 more than in 2005, and the highest figure since 2001.

http://www.hfea.gov.uk/en/1523.html
http://www.hfea.gov.uk/en/1459.html

I don't have a huge problem with sperm donors being paid, or the numbers of children per donor being increased, but we should never go back to the days of anonymous donors. The donor-conceived are the ones who matter in this, not the parents, not the clinics, and not the donors.

If a sperm donor wants to be anonymous, then he simply shouldn't be a sperm donor. I was a sperm donor over 20 years ago, and if I have any genetic children looking for me, I've made it as easy as possible for them to find me.