As I wrote in a previous post about the shortage of sperm donors in Australia, it had me thinking about what the government could do (or stop doing) to get the sperm donor numbers back up.
So without further ado, the following is the list of changes the government could make (but probably won't) which would increase sperm donation levels in Australia:
1. Bring back optional anonymity
Governments don't really seem to understand cause and effect. If I were to mandate that every dollar you gave as charity would put you on a public list where everyone could see not only who you are, but also how much you gave. This would put most people off giving because people do not want to become targets for other charities.
Optional anonymity gave donors (mostly men) the choice as to whether or not they wanted to be contacted. If you were having a hard time dealing with a marriage crisis 18 years after you donated sperm, would the appearance of a son or daughter out of the blue make your life better, or more complicated?
I guess the only concern about this one is that, given the government has already retro-actively removed anonymity for previous male donors, there's really not guarantee they won't back-track again, so technically this ship may have actually sailed for the current generation and the trust of anonymity may not come back for several decades to come.
2. Bring in something - anything! - to protect donors
Let's face it, the current system consists of: if the child now over 18 years old, he or she can have access to information about the donor. There may be a step in that process which consists of advising the donor that the conceived child has been given the details of the donor and may be in contact, but I can't find any information on that being part of the process. I also can't find anywhere where it says that the donor will be given the child's name in return, meaning you could potentially have a schizophrenic person who knows you're their biological father, knows your name and where you live and you've got no idea they're coming or that they have 'issues' that could be life threatening to you or your family.
The children conceived by sperm donation should go through an examination of sorts to determine if they're mentally fit to just hand the details of their biological donor. They might be a pedophile who'd love to get their hands on your children. They might have severe mental issues and giving them personal details of their biological parent might not be in the best interests of the donor or his/her family. The current system doesn't seem to consider the safety, health and well being of them, so much as it concerns itself with the 'right to an identity' of the 'child'.
3. Treat sperm donation like a business transaction by allowing donors to get paid
This may open up a can of worms by providing incentives to donor to lie so that their sperm is used, but at the same time we have to acknowledge that it is a supply and demand industry. The IVF clinics and their respective employees all make money through the course of the process, the women accepting the donations pay for the treatment, why shouldn't the sperm donor simply be treated like a 'supplier' and paid accordingly?
I'm all for un-paid blood donations: you roll up your sleeve, get a needle jab, give blood and it saves a life (or two). Sperm donation just doesn't line up with that philosophy. Firstly, you have to give far more personal information before you're allowed to donate, you're required to go into a tiny room with a bunch of magazines and movies and expected to give the performance of your life.
Then you'll be tested and told whether or not they even want your product and, if they're not interested, you're sent on your way with a "sorry, but you're just not up to scratch" message.
Forget that! What man wants to risk rejection all for the opportunity to have some child he may not want looking him up in 18 years time?!
4. Hold IVF Clinics accountable
The sperm donation industry is really an interesting one where a donor does have some control over who can access his sperm, but what's stopping little 'accidents' from happening. Accidents such as: man donates but stipulates his sperm is ONLY to go to couples (ie not single mothers) because he has a fundamental objection to single parents due to his own personal beliefs or upbringing. The IVF companies 'accept' this (notice on the Insight video linked in my first post how one manager of an IVF clinic was fine with donor's veto on women, but the other felt that bigots shouldn't continue) but impregnates people who do not meet with your requirements anyway.
To put it simply, it's the man's body, it should be the man's choice as to where his sperm should go.
Any person found going against the express conditions that a donor has put on his sperm should be legally liable to the tune of $1 million. IVF clinics make a lot of money, so only high penalties will dissuade them from lying to you in order to make a sale.
We don't accept that behavior from salespeople, why should we accept it from quasi-medical salespeople? How annoyed would you be if you were adamant that your sperm were to go to couples and not to single mothers only to find out that four out of five of your donations went to conceiving babies with single women? Currently the system offers nothing in the way of compensation for you (the donor) because it was "an honest mistake".
5. Financial protection of donors
There needs to be explicit statement that donors will not be liable, either in their own life OR in death, for the children produced by their donation. I've often heard this one mentioned as a brush-off remark of "of course donors aren't liable". Where is that written? What about if a person turns up at your funeral claiming to be an illegitimate child deserving of a slice of your inheritance, are there any penalties for that fraud? They'd have the necessary DNA to back up their claims, although the donor's family would have a pretty hard time proving the unexpected claim actually came from a sperm donation if they're not given full access to sperm donation records, especially if the family weren't aware that sperm donations had been made. Last time I checked, knowing if a man has ever donated sperm does not appear on any pre-marriage documentation.
In summary, I think I've come up with some pretty key suggestions that, if implemented, would go a long way towards allaying the fears or concerns of many men who would otherwise love to help other couples conceive children.
The common responses I get when I raise the above points with people is "that wouldn't happen" or "have you ever heard of that happening?" The flaws in these arguments are:
a) IVF hasn't been around long enough to truly provide enough test cases to create laws surrounding them
b) Perhaps cases have presented themselves, only the media ignores the sperm donor aspect
c) The media can't be trusted to present information in an unbiased way, what makes you think they'd report openly and honestly about negative cases like the ones hypothesized above?
d) To state matter-of-factly that something "wouldn't happen" is not the same as saying it couldn't happen. Much like the people who donate sperm online thinking they're safe from child support payments ("they wouldn't come after me, they're such a nice lesbian couple that doesn't need money") not realising that the difference between wouldn't and couldn't is 18 years of child support payments.
So, any suggestions to add to my list? I highly doubt anyone in power will ever read any of my suggestions, let alone consider implementing. I personally believe that the government is happy with the shortage because the last thing the government really wants is too many single mothers to have to subsidize, of course that's just my personal opinion.
No comments:
Post a Comment