Donor conceived need to find the truth about their sperm donor's identity

Sperm donation is a topic that makes some people uncomfortable. For me, any qualms about discussing sperm vanished when I began producing a documentary about donor-conceived adults for the ABC. Sperm became a constant topic of conversation as we tried to unpack why in the past, sperm donation was anonymous and shrouded in secrecy.
In making our film Sperm Donors Anonymous we are hoping to reach the thousands of men who donated sperm anonymously and say: please watch these stories of children conceived with anonymous sperm. Many are growing into adults, finding out the truth about their conception, and many would like to know about their biological fathers. They have a right to know.
Laws need to be passed in Australia giving them this right. It’s time to put an end to the secrecy and the lack of openness that has surrounded donor-conception. Anonymity is a flawed process causing distress and grief for children, parents and sperm donors themselves.
When we started our project, director Lucy Paplinska and I made contact with sperm donors and donor-conceived adults through the Victorian Assisted Reproductive Treatment Authority (Varta).
We met Michael Griffiths, 40, a musical theatre performer who, at 28, found out by accident that he was donor-conceived when he read it in his mother’s unpublished autobiography. This revelation had a profound impact on him, causing a great deal of soul searching. Unfortunately, Michael was conceived in South Australia where many donor records were deliberately destroyed, but he was determined to discover his donor’s identity to complete the picture of his own identity.
At a group meeting in Melbourne, we met Ian Smith, a donor from the Madmen (Melbourne Anonymous Donors). Ian spoke about how he felt for the seven children he had fathered but never met. He and other donors at the meeting revealed a side to this story we hadn’t heard before. Here were guys who donated sperm more than 30 years ago, who at the time of donating thought little about “offspring”. But now they were open to contact, and in doing so, were supporting the donor-conceived people they knew who were fighting for the right to identifying information about their donor.
Lucy and I often asked ourselves what the fertility doctors who used anonymous sperm for almost 40 years were thinking. But it is estimated that the majority of the 60,000 donor-conceived people in Australia don’t know they are donor-conceived. Their parents haven’t told them, the clinics won’t tell them, and it’s not recorded on their birth certificates.
The clinics, in order to get on with the business of creating babies for infertile couples, made a decision in the 1970s that anonymous sperm donation was the only way society could deal with this new fertility treatment. This plan works as long as children don’t find out they are donor-conceived, and parents can shoulder the burden of keeping their secret.
Ross Hunter, who we also met in Melbourne, found out he was donor conceived at age 33. He wants to find his donor but his conception records are still to be located and his donor is not on a voluntary register or DNA database. Along with a group of other donor conceived folk, Ross started a campaign called RUDC? (Are you donor conceived?), encouraging children to ask their parents this question. But encouraging kids to ask also means encouraging parents to tell the truth. Parents are more likely to do this if they think their children will be able to find their donor.
The research to date isn’t conclusive on how many donors are open to contact. However it’s clear from our research that many donors are open to contact. We were fortunate two of our participants located their donors during filming and both were open to contact.
We followed Michael Griffiths as he returned to Adelaide looking for information about his donor. One donor came forward after reading a newspaper article but wanted to remain anonymous to Michael until a DNA test could prove paternity. A few weeks later, I went to visit the donor to ask if he would participate in our documentary.
I discovered he donated as a student. Seeing Michael’s face in a newspaper sent a jolt through him and he became determined to find out about the children he had fathered. He rang and emailed everyone he could think of – clinics, government, doctors. He showed me the file he kept tracking the correspondence; it was huge.
Here was a man coming to terms with the fact that he had children out there. He was willing to do a DNA test and go on a register, but no organisation in South Australia would facilitate a test, or give him information. When he told me his family was very musical (Michael is a singer and pianist), it was hard to hold back the tears. I could see clearly that the power of biological connection was going both ways, it wasn’t just the children who had a need to know.
Victorian clinics like Monash IVF now write to donors when requested by their biological children, as they have kept identity profiles. Some donors reject contact, and when they do, the clinic cannot give the children any identifying information. This rejection is painful. I know that making contact and handing over identifying information isn’t what anonymous donors signed up for, but there are real children out there.
I stayed in contact with the anonymous donor in Adelaide, and through the process of his DNA test with Michael. While waiting for the results of the test, he was on tenterhooks. He said he felt like an expectant father waiting for the birth of a child.
Article: 17th August 2015 www.theguardian.com

Australian donors split over past change in anonymity law

People who donated sperm and eggs before 1998 in one Australian state were able to remain anonymous, but potential new laws could have changed that. A recent study found those donors were split on the idea of possible contact from their donor children. Victoria, Australia introduced legislation to ban anonymous sperm and egg donation in 1998. "This means that donor-conceived children who were born after 1998 have a legal right to access information about their donor," Karin Hammarberg told Reuters Health by email. Hammarberg is a postdoctoral research fellow at the School of Public Health and Preventative Medicine at Monash University in Melbourne. It was also suggested that the government change the law to allow everyone conceived through sperm and egg donations to find information about their donor - including pre-1998 donors who thought they could stay anonymous, she said. But before deciding, the government wanted to ask people who donated in the past how they would feel about no longer being anonymous, and reached About half of the donors who rejected the recommendation were themselves willing to supply information to their donor offspring. They suggested the compromise of persuading donors to voluntarily release information to donor-conceived people. Many of them also thought parents should be encouraged to tell their children about their donor conception, and some thought it should be required. It's impossible to know if the views of these 42 donors represent the views of all Australians who donated eggs or sperm before 1998, the researchers noted. In August 2013, the Victorian government considered the survey findings. Although acknowledging the right of donor-conceived people to have information about their donors, the government decided identifying information should only be released with a donor's consent. "The balancing of donors' and donor-conceived people's rights requires utmost sensitivity. All over the world, increasing numbers of donor-conceived people are reaching adulthood. Of those who have been told that they were conceived with the help of a donor, some are likely to have a strong wish to know the identity of their donors," Hammarberg said. Read more ... Article: 23rd December 2013 www.reuters.com

Anonymous donor conceived want the right to know their biological parents

It is undeniable that we humans have an innate desire to know from whom we came. Many people who are adopted or have only one parent will tell you that they feel they are missing a piece of a puzzle. Genealogy websites like Ancestry.com exist because of our fascination with our genetic ancestors. Every time I see an ad for Ancestry.com, a place where you “Find your ancestors’ stories” and “Discover yours,” I feel that tug to find out more about my grandparents and great-grandparents. My daughter’s junior year project for high school was a presentation and paper on the immigration of both sides of her family to America. Now imagine if you were purposely denied one half of your story by a powerful industry that runs on anonymity. And what if when you pointed out the intentional injustice, you were told that you should shut-up and simply be grateful for your life. This is the experience for many a child conceived from anonymous donor gametes. The following is a excerpt from testimony that Alana S. Newman, founder of AnonymousUs.org, gave to the California Assembly Committee on Health regarding AB460, a bill in the California legislature that would require insurers to offer coverage for infertility treatments regardless of the relationship. Alana is bravely standing up for the rights of those intentionally denied what she believes is a fundamental right: the right to a relationship with one’s biological parents. She writes: The facts of my conception are that my father was paid to abandon me. There is no dignity in that. I suffered from debilitating identity issues, mistrust of the opposite sex, hatred and condemnation of the opposite sex, feelings of objectification – like I only exist as a play – toy for others, and feeling like a science experiment. If people can take away something so precious as a mother or father and make us feel like we should be grateful for the loss, what else can people take away from us? How do you expect the next generation to fight for things like freedom, democracy, clean air, clean water, when something as precious and basic as your mother or father is stolen from you? Removed by the state… Removed by a fertility industry that forces you into existence and then doesn’t return your calls when you grow up and start banging on their doors asking for records… Removed by a commissioning parent, often your other biological parent who vowed to protect and provide for you, but only on the contingency that you show gratitude for your life and don’t ask questions about the other missing parent…. One of the United State’s most famous civil rights leaders was Malcolm X. The “X” he used to replace his last name was a direct criticism of slave – owners removing slaves from their spouses, parents and children, and being disconnected from their ancestry and heritage. “Who do you think you are” is a popular TV show where celebrities have their genealogy investigated. Rosie O’Donnell herself expressed a craving to “discover her family as fully fleshed out people and learn about their journeys”. The sheer existence of a term and concept like genealogy demonstrates that it is unfair to minimize and marginalize donor – conceived people’s curiosities about our genetic kin, and dismiss our desire for connection….. Having a bloated industry where medical and legal professionals profit from separating children from their biological parents is problematic. Very few people like to hear that their choices have devastating consequences for others. If there is a place where voices like Alana’s need to be heard, it is the fertility machine. Both infertile couples and the fertility industry must hear what she is saying. The desire for a child does not trump the right of a child to know his or her biological parents. Article: 14th June 2013 www.lifenews.com

Canadian sperm donor debate focuses on children's rights

While adoptive children have the right to information about their birth parents and children of sperm donors have no rights to information about the donors, there is no discrimination, the province argued Tuesday.
That's because the provincial law is targeted at adoptive children and does not address - or violate - the constitutional rights of children of gamete donors, who can remain anonymous, provincial lawyer Leah Greathead told the B.C. Court of Appeal.

The province is appealing a B.C. Supreme Court ruling that gave offspring of gamete (sperm or egg) donors the same rights as adopted children, who have had rights to access their birth records since the law was changed in 1996.

Two days have been set aside for the appeal case, which continues today. The landmark lawsuit being heard Tuesday, the first of its kind in North America, was launched by B.C.-born Olivia Pratten, who now lives in Toronto.

The provincial government also argued that Pratten is seeking rights that are not afforded to all children, as children who are not adopted must rely on getting genetic or medical information from a parent.

For example, a single mom can choose whether or not to tell her child who the father is. The province also argued more information is available today about sperm donors than there was 30 years ago.

Greathead noted that a woman who wants to use donated sperm today can usually get information on a donor's health and temperament. The woman can also seek out a donor willing to be identified.

In an interview during a break in the court proceedings, Pratten noted donor information is only accessible by voluntary agreement. She wants to see laws in place that ensure records of gamete donors are maintained and are available to the children of those donors.

"There's a complete void in the law," said Pratten, 29. She said she's been told by legal experts to expect the case to go to the Supreme Court of Canada. Pratten said the case is not about opening up old files - hers have been destroyed - but about changing the law going forward.

Her lawyer, Joseph Arvay, told the court his client simply wants the same benefits that adopted children have under the province's laws. "I say the legislative scheme is discriminatory when it provides benefit to adoptive people ... because they have real needs [to know their genetic heritage and medical history] and deny benefits to those who have the same needs," argued Arvay.

The judges peppered Arvay with questions, noting the state has chosen not to create laws regulating the sphere of artificial reproduction. "It's [using a gamete donor] a matter of personal choice," noted Justice Mary Saunders.

In May 2011, B.C. Supreme Court Justice Elaine Adair struck down the Adoption Act on the grounds that it was discriminatory and therefore unconstitutional. She suspended the effect of the ruling for 15 months to allow the government time to draft legislation so it does not violate Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The judge also granted a permanent injunction to prohibit the destruction and disposal of the records of gamete donors. Countries such as Sweden, Holland, the U.K. and parts of Australia no longer allow anonymous gamete donations.

Article: 20th February 2012 www.vancouversun.com

Sperm Donors in Australia could have their details tagged on Birth Certificates

BIRTH certificates could be secretly tagged with the identity of sperm or egg donors under a controversial New South Wales Government proposal to help children track down their biological parents later in life.
Notes or "hidden" addendums would be linked to the certificates, telling the child that more information relating to their donor was available when they turned 18.

The move would mean all donor details could be recorded on the NSW Registry of Births, Deaths and Marriages for the first time.

The current Assisted Reproductive Technology Register, overseen by NSW Health since its introduction in 2010, covers commercial conceptions but excludes non-medical donations or private arrangements.

In a submission to a parliamentary inquiry, Department of Premier and Cabinet deputy director-general Vicki D'Adam suggested that the option of a hidden record would still allow the child to use the birth certificate for public identification purposes without possible embarrassment.

"Options for including donor information on the birth certificate would need to take into account issues of privacy to ensure that donor-conceived children are not stigmatised by being treated differently to other children," she said.

The inquiry was launched last year after the NSW District Court ordered that a NSW sperm donor be removed from his daughter's BDM register. It ruled that the birth mother's former partner had the right to be named on the register, despite the donor maintaining a close relationship and financial support for the child since birth.

The law says only two parent names can be on the BDM register.

Article: 17th February 2012 www.heraldsun.com.au

Anonymous sperm donor law in Canada goes to appeal court

VANCOUVER — The long-running battle over sperm donor anonymity is heading for the B.C. Court of Appeal on Tuesday. Lawyers for the B.C. government are expected to seek to overturn a ruling that last year struck down as unconstitutional the anonymous sperm-donor law. The appeal is scheduled to be heard over two days.
Olivia Pratten, who was born in B.C. and now lives in Toronto, has been trying unsuccessfully for 10 years to find out details about her biological father, who was an anonymous sperm donor.

The May ruling by B.C. Supreme Court Justice Elaine Adair suspended her decision for 15 months to give the B.C. legislature time to redraft the Adoption Act to bring it in compliance with the Charter of Rights.

But instead of passing new legislation, the government has opted to appeal the ruling. Pratten believes the government is just stalling for political reasons that are unclear to her.

“In my eyes, it’s a delay tactic,” she said of the government appeal. “They don’t want to deal with it, but that’s been the problem since whenever we’ve done this. It gets bounced around between provincial and federal governments and no one wants to deal with it.”

Pratten added that while it’s been frustrating, scholars and legal experts have told her that the case will likely wind up being appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada in any event.

The judge found that the law was unfair because it allowed adopted children to find out information about their biological parents, but prevented donor offspring such as Pratten from finding out anything about their parents.

“In my view, the evidence in this case provides strong support for the conclusion that the circumstances of adoptees and those of donor offspring with regard to the need to know and have connection with one’s roots, are closely comparable,” said the judge.

Article: 13th February 2012 www.montrealgazette.com

Mother wishes to identify the father of her IVF son, conceived with a sperm donor

A single mother from north London is trying to lift the anonymity of her child's sperm donor.
The woman has been told her six-year-old son will never be able to trace his father because the child was conceived at a Spanish clinic. The case is understood to be the first of its kind and experts say it highlights the pitfalls for those who undergo IVF abroad.

It also has led to renewed calls for a system of cross-border regulations over fertility treatment. Under British law, children conceived in Britain are entitled to obtain the name and address of their biological donor when they reach 18. These details are held on a database run by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. But the HFEA has said it is powerless to act.

The mother, who is Jewish, used an English donor who was also Jewish and he provided sperm through the London Women's Clinic. But the clinic did not have any donor eggs, so the woman transported the sperm to a clinic in Marbella where her son was conceived in December 2005. This meant none of the sperm donor's identifiable details could be placed on the authority's database.

In a statement, the woman said she hoped "with all my heart" that the father of her child would still want to meet him. She said: "I still hope that one day, through my son, I may get to thank him after all for giving me this wonderful child, who brings such joy to so many people."

Sperm donor's genetic illness never disclosed to his 24 children

A mother and son were devastated to find out the man who donated sperm for his conception had a genetic illness - and they were never warned. Rebecca Blackwell and her 18-year-old son Tyler of Maryland tracked down sperm donor ‘John’ three years ago.
While he didn't respond to their letter for contact, John's sister found them online via Ancestry.com and, unaware her brother had donated sperm, asked why they wanted to get in touch. When she found out he had a son, she told them of the fatal genetic disorder that had ruptured John's aorta at the age of 43.

She said John, two brothers and their mother all had an 'unnamed, never before seen genetic mutation' disorder, the 59-year-old special education teacher told MailOnline. John's father, who didn't die from the aortic dissection suffered a stroke due to a lack of oxygen to the brain, Ms Blackwell said. John also has a family condition of the connective tissue disorder Marfan's Syndrome.

‘Tyler had a time bomb ticking in his chest,’ she said. ‘It didn't occur to anyone to tell us.’ Though Tyler has since had surgery on the defect in June, questions are raised as to the Blackwells weren't informed.

The fertility industry in the United States is one of the most unregulated in the developed world, said Wendy Kramer of the Donor Sibling Registry, a group that has matched some 8,400 donor offspring with their half siblings and/or donors. ‘There are no rules or regulations about donor identification, testing donors, monitoring numbers of children or medical records,’ she said.

Ms Kramer conceived her own son via sperm donation. ‘No one is watching. There are no laws. They don't keep track.’ But laws are changing. Come Friday, Washington is set to be the first state to give donor-conceived people the right to crucial health information about their biological parents when they turn eighteen. Previously, they were not entitled to any information and medical records were rarely updated.

Advocated say the new law is imperfect but it's a 'first step' in allowing these children to be nationally recognised. There are approximately 1 million children in the US born via a sperm donor. Law at present requires donors only be screened for sexually transmitted diseases and some communicable diseases.
To read more go to http://bit.ly/oTskNm