Doner children demand to be told parents' IDs

[kygal]

I think that if there is anything major (medically) in the history of the donor, it should be flagged in the profile they have before the "donations" occur. I'm sure all these companies keep a record of this stuff (if not they really should IMO). Maybe if these companies were up front about the medical histories, there would be no need for this type of need-to-know.

I don't think they need to know WHO, but it shouldn't be too hard to flag a medical problem on a file. IMO that's all a donor child should really need to know anyway.

I also agree that most of us really don't completely know our own medical histories anymore unless something happens to us.

 

[JBean]

I think the point for me is when you know a certain history, you may start looking for it earlier than the guidelines say.

If you have a history of colon cancer in your family for people younger than 50, you would get your colonsocopy in your 40's.
Most doctors and insurance companies recommend it at age 50.
See what I mean?

I understand that if you have the history it can certainly be used to your advantage. But what I mean is I do not think it is a strong enough reason to get information about someone that doesn't want to be found.
So if there are legitimate concerns about health, just be proactive as early as possible and rule things out as appropriate.
I know my complete family health history and it has been of zero benefit to me. There is no history is epilepsy or any other health issue that my sons and I have ever had. We are the first!

 

[Trino]

How does knowing who donated their sperm help a person know *who they are*
I agree
This just doesn't hold up anymore. We have too many sophisticated ways to get medical history. I think this is an excuse. JMHO of course.
What would be different if you knew you were predisposed to something anyway? best to just take the best care of yourself as possible and cover all the bases regardless of your medical history.
If I didn't know what my family history was regarding breast cancer, I would just make sure i got regualr exams and stayed on top of it. What difference would knowing my history really make?

A friend of ours has Huntington's Disease, which is hereditary. Any offspring would have a 50% chance of dying from this. Maybe people like this would choose not to pass on lethal genes. Huntington's does not usually make an appearance until the mid-thirties, when many people have already had kids.

 

[csds703]

I understand that if you have the history it can certainly be used to your advantage. But what I mean is I do not think it is a strong enough reason to get information about someone that doesn't want to be found.
So if there are legitimate concerns about health, just be proactive as early as possible and rule things out as appropriate.
I know my complete family health history and it has been of zero benefit to me. There is no history is epilepsy or any other health issue that my sons and I have ever had. We are the first!

I think the privacy laws are important. I do not think anyone should be forced into being found.
I have always felt that an updated medical history would be the right thing to do especially if it is information that could possibly save a child's life.

 

[JBean]

A friend of ours has Huntington's Disease, which is hereditary. Any offspring would have a 50% chance of dying from this. Maybe people like this would choose not to pass on lethal genes. Huntington's does not usually make an appearance until the mid-thirties, when many people have already had kids.

How often does this happen where adopted kids succumb to HD because they had no idea it was in their history? Is this a big problem? Are all cases of HD a result of hidden health history? I am surprised they would allow any of this to go on if this is a big problem facing us today.
My point is that yes I agree there are some risks being taken. but it is still not enough to go find someone that doesn't want to be found and it was understood they didn't want to be found.. Shouldn't go the donor route if you think your offspring won't be able to handle not knowing.
To be clear, of course I understand that having medical history available can certainly be hepful in some instances. But I don't think it is a good argument for finding out identity if the deal was that they were not going to tell. Sorry to those kids, but these are the problems that are created when we have technology in the mix.
I agree with the poster that said health issues should be flagged if they aren't already. I know that if I were concerned about any of these issues I would not use a sperm donor.

 

[JBean]

I think the privacy laws are important. I do not think anyone should be forced into being found.
I have always felt that an updated medical history would be the right thing to do especially if it is information that could possibly save a child's life.

I totally agree. They should be revealed at the donor level. After a little soul searching in the past few minutes, not a chance in heck I could take a sperm donation from someone that I didn't have the particulars on.

 

[csds703]

I totally agree. They should be revealed at the donor level. After a little soul searching in the past few minutes, not a chance in heck I could take a sperm donation from someone that I didn't have the particulars on.

So much for our heated debate.:blowkiss:

 

[JBean]

So much for our heated debate.:blowkiss:

What I am really trying to say is that I think many people use the medical information as an excuse to find a parent when all they really want is to find their parent out of curiousity.:blowkiss:

 

[csds703]

What I am really trying to say is that I think many people use the medical information as an excuse to find a parent when all they really want is to find their parent out of curiousity.:blowkiss:

I think the privacy laws are very important.
Remember that guy who donated sperm to his colleague and she sued him for child support 18 years later.
If the bio parent wants to be found and the adopted/sperm donor child wants to be found then that's another story.

 

[mic730]

I think the privacy laws are very important.
Remember that guy who donated sperm to his colleague and she sued him for child support 18 years later.
If the bio parent wants to be found and the adopted/sperm donor child wants to be found then that's another story.

I think the privacy laws are important as well.

 

[Floh]

What I am really trying to say is that I think many people use the medical information as an excuse to find a parent when all they really want is to find their parent out of curiousity.:blowkiss:

Agreed.

 

[JanetElaine]

If it's the medical history the donor children are after, then why not make it a requirement to have the anonymous medical history on file? I always think the 'medical history' card is being played when people just really want to know their 'father', who, by law, is 'just a donor' and IMO should remain that way - anonymous. A lot of donors will pull out (okay, pun intended ) if they're not anonymous anymore.

It has always freaked me out btw that donors are able to donate 'a lot'... what if these children with half of the same genes end up marrying and having babies? I know there are 'procedures in place' and all, but still, just the surface thought of it... heh.

ETA: okay, csds and jbean covered all of that (see my first paragraph). Late to the thread and all, sorry!

 

[bnhall]

I absolutely think sperm donors have the right to remain anonymous. I would hate to think of a bunch of adults tracking down their bio dad and causing turmoil in his life when he assumed he was going to be the donor, not the father.

 

[Trino]

If it's the medical history the donor children are after, then why not make it a requirement to have the anonymous medical history on file? I always think the 'medical history' card is being played when people just really want to know their 'father', who, by law, is 'just a donor' and IMO should remain that way - anonymous. A lot of donors will pull out (okay, pun intended ) if they're not anonymous anymore.

It has always freaked me out btw that donors are able to donate 'a lot'... what if these children with half of the same genes end up marrying and having babies? I know there are 'procedures in place' and all, but still, just the surface thought of it... heh.

ETA: okay, csds and jbean covered all of that (see my first paragraph). Late to the thread and all, sorry!

An anonymous medical file would work only if the donor knew his medical history at the time of donation or if he were truthful. What if the donor developed something hereditary later in life, example ALS, which can be hereditary?

 

[eve]

I think that if there is anything major (medically) in the history of the donor, it should be flagged in the profile they have before the "donations" occur. I'm sure all these companies keep a record of this stuff (if not they really should IMO). Maybe if these companies were up front about the medical histories, there would be no need for this type of need-to-know.

I don't think they need to know WHO, but it shouldn't be too hard to flag a medical problem on a file. IMO that's all a donor child should really need to know anyway.

I also agree that most of us really don't completely know our own medical histories anymore unless something happens to us.

I agree with this. For instance, my stepson has the medical condition portrayed in that movie about the boy in the bubble. It is an immune disorder that was once certainly fatal and now is controlled to some degree with meds. Right now he is having iv injections twice a day, for two months, after which, he will have half of his lung surgically removed. He already has had the other lung partially removed. This condition is passed from mother to son. Mothers are carriers only. Boys are victims. I seriously doubt his sister, who is a carrier, could donate her eggs, though I do not know if this is the case. But if she could, would the resulting child have a right to know about the 50% chance that he or she could be afflicted or a carrier?

Eve

 

[Amraann]

I think that if there is anything major (medically) in the history of the donor, it should be flagged in the profile they have before the "donations" occur. I'm sure all these companies keep a record of this stuff (if not they really should IMO). Maybe if these companies were up front about the medical histories, there would be no need for this type of need-to-know.

I don't think they need to know WHO, but it shouldn't be too hard to flag a medical problem on a file. IMO that's all a donor child should really need to know anyway.

I also agree that most of us really don't completely know our own medical histories anymore unless something happens to us.

I think this is an excellent solution but I also think that the donor should have to update medical issues they may have over the years..

Really if you do not want to deal with a possible off spring then maybe you should simply not donate.

 

[TheShadow]

Well I would hope that donors are medically screened and known carriers or people with a strong family history should be turned away as donors. Of course they could lie I guess. I agree that people are always playing the medical history card when they really want to know out of curiousity and dissatisfaction with their parents that raised them. I think it is a slap in the face to their parents, and I would be crushed if my adopted or donor sperm/egg child was so fascinated by finding their "real" parent (I don't have one, I'm speaking hypothetically). Many of us who are not donor sperm kids don't "know" who our father is. Me for instance. I strongly suspect that my dad is not my bio father. But since he's dead and my mom's dead, who cares. My medical history is opposite from all my siblings and I look only like my mom, nothing like my dad. They were temporarily seperated around the time of my conception, and were divorced two years later. I guess I could get some DNA test or something to determine if my brothers are full or half brothers. To be honest it's a moot point to me. If I am pre-disposed I will, or won't, get the particular disease. Knowing won't change that. I try to eat healthy and exercise and get fresh air and vitamins and take care of myself. I get all my screenings, extra ones even. I guess I'm weird because I don't have a burning desire to discover what makes no difference. What would I do differently if I knew?

 

[drip~drop]

Personally, I could not deal with not knowing where half of my genes came from, and with the prospect of NEVER knowing...but I am an extremely curious person, which is how I came to this site in the first place.

I got to know my biomom and only have a name (maybe) of the sperm donor. (he was a married man cheating and taking advantage of my 15/16yo mom. )
I haven't had the urge to find him.:loser: If he wanted, he could have found me and as far as I know, he never bothered.
As far as I'm concerned, I only have/had one daddy. My adoptive daddy. He was and still is, my love. He was an awesome man and humanatarian.

 

[drip~drop]

I agree with this. For instance, my stepson has the medical condition portrayed in that movie about the boy in the bubble. It is an immune disorder that was once certainly fatal and now is controlled to some degree with meds. Right now he is having iv injections twice a day, for two months, after which, he will have half of his lung surgically removed. He already has had the other lung partially removed. This condition is passed from mother to son. Mothers are carriers only. Boys are victims. I seriously doubt his sister, who is a carrier, could donate her eggs, though I do not know if this is the case. But if she could, would the resulting child have a right to know about the 50% chance that he or she could be afflicted or a carrier?

Eve

If your daughter decided to donate her eggs, she would have to be 100% truthful on her application. Anything less would be criminal and doom a future child.
I don't think that is even close to fair and far away from morally right.

But, if she decided to donate and was completely honest, I guess it would be up to the doctors to accept her and the future parents decision if they wanted to chance such a possibility.

And yes, the child should have the right to know all things medical. It's very important she/he knows.

I still kinda wish I knew my biospermdonorfathers medical family history!

 

[SeekingJana]

Here's my take on it as an impartial observer in AI but as an adult who lacks a family medical history.
1) A man donates sperm for financial gain, usually while in his 20's.
2) SOME fertility or Assisted Reproduction clinics have had little to no restrictions on how often a donor could donate or how often his sperm vials could be retrieved for insemination if a woman picked his donor profile for insemination.
3) As has come to light in Great Britain, two biological half-siblings with the same sperm donor met, fell in love and married without any knowledge of their shared heritage. We are to believe that their marriage was dissolved before any children were conceived, but who knows?
The medical community world wide has literally wept over the well- publicized story of these two apparently bright, promising young people who had their lives ripped apart by a shared anonymous parentage.

4) The issue of an accurate and complete medical history is the most significant to an adult, obviously. It is complicated by the fact that most donors donate sperm when they are young and healthy and may not have any signs of serious to devastating inherited diseases or conditions. Of course they are screened for health, etc but when we are 20 years old, and our parents in their 40's we still may not know of any family problems which will start to show up and will plague our biological offsprings' lives.
Think of Huntington's, of familial Alzheimer's, of many more diseases with a lesser but still present familial predisposition.
MANY types of diseases are only diagnosable after the onset in a parent or sibling, but there are genetic screening tests for adult children. I would want to know if I had the gene for breast cancer, for Alzheimers or ALS or God forbid, Huntington's. Even if the knowing brought me great pain, I could do the responsible and ethical thing and choose not to reproduce. I could spare a child being born and continuing the cycle if I could know by age 21 ( or the legal age of majority in the specific case).

To the person who said " Then vigilance should be practiced against all diseases and inherited conditions".That would be utopian, but that's not the way the real world operates. A problem cannot be anticipated in the absence of symptoms.
We are assumed to be healthy until or unless our own life's course proves otherwise in the total absence of a good family medical history.
I lack a family medical history. Not because I didn't ask all the pertinent questions of biological relatives, but because their levels of health care didn't match mine ( or that of my peers) , and because their understanding of the implications of their medical histories in both their lives and mine was insufficient for them to be able to tell me much of anything. They were in their 60's at the time, and shrugged off my questions like I was asking them about STD's not heart disease, cancer, neurological diseases, diabetes.

The sad truth then, is, that for many of us who for one reason or another do not have access to both biological parents, which is probably a great deal of today's population, it is a game of " wait and see". We can ask, we can try to be pro-active, but if the other parties are not as knowledgable or receptive as a person would expect to be reasonable, all the searching and databases in the world are still a crap shoot.