I saw an interesting program today about sperm banks.

I have to admit that I didn't see the entire program, but I got the gist of it, and if you'd all be interested, I'd like a discussion. Not sure if I'm putting this in the right forum. If not, mods, feel free to move it.

Anyway, the gist of the program was this.

A woman, almost 20 years ago, got sperm from a sperm bank. She hand picked the sperm from a catologue. Well, when her son was older he developed a heart condition, and aspergers. She contacted the sperm bank, demanded to know the identity of the person that had provided the sperm she used. She contacted this man, asked if he had any health issues that he hadn't disclosed in his original application when he donated sperm.

Turns out that the man does have a heart defect, and aspergers does run in the family. But, he was not aware of this when he donated sperm. She demanded that he report this to the sperm banks he donated to. He refused.

Also, it turns out that he donated sperm to three different sperm banks, and as a result, has provided genetic DNA to around 9 children. Almost half of them have a heart condition, and aspergers.

The position of the woman on the show was that once he learned of his genetic disposition for heart disease and aspergers, her should have been legally obligated to call the sperm banks he donated to to inform them that the children produced from his sperm could be at risk of these genetic illnesses.

What are your thoughts?

If you donate sperm, do you have an obligation to the offspring that sperm produces? Do the children that are produced by your sperm have any rights to your real identity, and any health issues you have, even if those issues weren't known when you donated?

Think it should be totally anonymous,

I completely agree Chuck.

While I was watching the show my only thought was that she took a risk, but that's a risk everyone takes whenever they choose a mate to have children with. That goes for both the man and the woman.

The fact is, this man didn't know that he had a heart defect, or that he was genetically predisposed to pass that on to his offspring. Also, he had no idea that aspergers ran in the family.

He was honest on his application. The issues that his biological children have, are genetic issues he wasn't aware of when he donated.

Do people really expect a lifelong commitment to a man that donates sperm? That's what, a five minute (tops) procedure? Come on! You chose the sperm, you chose to go that route, and you get what you get. The end. That's my opinion.

I think they should be required to update the information when knowledge of a genetic trait that poses a health risk is determined. The prospective mothers could then make an informed decision on their selection.

Not sure how they would be able to monitor it if it were made a legal requirement, but one would hope that people would feel a moral obligation for the health and well-being of their potential offspring.

Sperm donors should have no obligation, but the sperm bank should very clearly state that donors could have unreported/unknown medical problems and this should be in the contract.

I married someone and didn't know he has Asperger's (not known about and discussed back then), and other health problems, but no one has offered to give me my money or those years back so I can marry someone else who's perfect. So, even knowing your sperm donor doesn't always help.

It's a risk no matter how you do it.

I agree WG. There are always risks, even if you know the person, love the person. My husbands family has a history of ADHD. My husband has it. Our son has it. I realize that's not as big an issue as aspergers or a heart defect, but it just shows that no matter how you produce a child, there are things in your and your spouses DNA, that could affect the child.

Look at our family histories combined. Both of my parents died of cancer. Same with my husband. We're not passing down a very good genetic base for our children. Chances are that both my husband and I will die of cancer, and so will our children. It's genetics. Can't run from it. But who do we blame? Do we blame our parents, because their genes weren't perfect? Or do we blame ourselves because we chose to have children? Just fyi, both my parents were alive and well when I had Jared. Rod's mom was alive and well also. Only his father had passed away due to cancer when Jared was conceived. We didn't know that cancer was as huge a concern as we know now. After Jared was born my Oma died of cancer, my father died of cancer, and my mother died of cancer.

But we did know that cancer ran in both of our families when we chose to have Sydney. Should we have shut things down? Accepted that one child was all we should have? If we had, we wouldn't have a Sydney. :(

We took a chance. We hoped for the best. I think that's all anyone can do, no matter how they go about having a child. There's no guarantee.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DoulaLC

I think they should be required to update the information when knowledge of a genetic trait that poses a health risk is determined. The prospective mothers could then make an informed decision on their selection.

Not sure how they would be able to monitor it if it were made a legal requirement, but one would hope that people would feel a moral obligation for the health and well-being of their potential offspring.

---

I agree in a way. I do think that this specific sperm donor, once confronted by one of the angry women that received his sperm, and once made aware that he had a genetic predisposition to pass down aspergers and a heart defect to any potential offspring sired by his sperm, should have contacted the sperm banks he donated to.

The fact is, it was already too late to pull his sperm from the bank. His sperm had already been used. The children produced from his donation were already born, and living.

Would it have helped the children and mothers to know that there was an increased risk of heart disease or aspergers? Yes. But, would it prevent anything? No.

If we start asking for more responsibility on the part of a sperm donor, many men will refuse to donate sperm.

I think that the main question these women should be asking is if they're happy to have the children they have due to sperm donation, or if they would have rather not had these children in their lives, had they had more information, information that even the donor wasn't aware of at the time of donation.

If the men get paid for their 'donation', then they should be obligated to update their information for a reasonable amount of time. Perhaps for as long as their contribution is available for withdrawal.

I don't think they should be able to be held responsible for health of any children produced unless they knowingly supplied false information at the time of their 'donation'. Taking a chance is very different from making an informed decision especially for couples dealing with infertility issues.

While it probably isn't mandatory and won't be, I would think that a responsible human being would supply the information when it became known.

I guess I am looking at it as if they didn't know, then obviously they couldn't have provided such information. However, if they are required to provide that information when donating, when it is known, why not have to provide it if it becomes known at a later time. It wouldn't require a change to his anonymity.

Certainly couples have babies without always knowing a health concern will show up later, but when making the choice of a donor, women go into it expecting to have that sort of information if it is known.

I don't know if the woman in the program was seeking any sort of monetary support, or if she just wanted the sperm bank to be informed. I think that they should. It wouldn't change anything for the children already born, but it could make a difference for possible future children.

I liken it to knowingly passing something on to someone that could be potentially life altering or lethal. Just doesn't sit well with me. I am thinking more of the possible children, and what they and their families may have to go through. When a couple makes that sort of decision together, that is one thing... they both knowingly agree to that. When one party knows of it, but doesn't share that with the other so that they can be part of that decision making process, then it is a problem.

The idea suggested by WG of making it well known that there is the potential for undetermined or unreported health concerns in the contract may be all that can be hoped for. Perhaps there already is a clause to that regard. I don't know, but you would think that there would be as I would think sperm banks would want to make sure that all the bases were covered.

If I used a sperm donor ("Bob" or even an anon. one), got pregnant, had a child, and later was told by the sperm bank that he has major medical difficulties, I would not be a happy camper and would feel financially and emotionally and maternally abused.

Would the sperm bank refund my money?

If 'Bob' didn't know at the time he 'donated', then no one is to blame.

If 'Bob' did know and lied on any forms then he should be held responsible.

If the bank was supposed to do genetic and health screenings and didn't, then it should be held responsible.

If knowledge of 'Bob's' health becomes known to the bank, but it continues to use 'Bob's' sperm, then it should be held responsible.

The main issue I have with the system is that men don't 'donate' their sperm without being compensated. While the compensation in many cases is supposed to be for time, etc. It is in effect 'selling' the sperm. There is a higher chance of fraud and should be higher expectations and standards especially when money is involved.

Single women aren't the only ones who use sperm banks. Couples dealing with male infertility or major genetic/health issues also turn to sperm banks. They are trying to make an informed decision based on the information known at the time. They should be able to trust the bank and the donor.

As I said before, I would hope that 'Bob' would be responsible and update his information if he finds out about a condition he didn't know about at the time of his 'donation'.

I think it should be totally anonymous... partially because of cases the resulting kids have sued for and gotten shares of someone's estate that took assets away from the real heirs...

Here's an interesting article on the subject:

Balancing the Rights of Donor Offspring With Those of Donors: But What About Parents? - Forbes

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cat1864

If the bank was supposed to do genetic and health screenings and didn't, then it should be held responsible.

---

This is the key for me. All sperm banks should be required to do whatever screening is available at the time the donation was made. If current technology was incapable of detecting Asperger's or a heart defect then neither the donor nor the bank is responsible.

The next issue was whether Bob was responsible for informing the bank(s) once he knew about the possibilities. Since frozen sperm can remain viable for centuries, donors should be informed that they should report any information they obtain in the future that might affect offspring of the sperm. While Asperger's clearly qualifies, a weak heart might not. It could have developed from external factors.

But in NO case should the donee be allowed to contact the donor. If a donee brings an issue to the bank, they should be the go-between and any info should be passed through the bank.