Star J
01-30-2007, 12:51 AM
Virginia bill would forbid anonymous sperm and egg donors
By DENA POTTER
Associated Press Writer
Jan 28, 2007
RICHMOND, Va. - Katrina Clark grew up knowing only that her father was tall, blond and a third-year college student somewhere in northern Virginia when he donated sperm.
Now 18, Clark is trying to persuade lawmakers to ban anonymous sperm and egg donations so others won't grow up with the same questions she had.
"I just felt like something had been stripped away from me," said Clark, a deaf studies and bioethics double-major at Gallaudet University in Washington, D.C.
Virginia would be the first state to prohibit anonymous donations. Australia, the United Kingdom and a handful of other European nations have banned the practice in recent years, and each has seen donations dwindle and the cost of fertility services rise. Opponents warn that the same would happen in Virginia and also question if that is not the true intent of the bill.
There were more than 15,000 successful egg donations in the U.S. in 2004, the latest data available, resulting in about 6,000 births. Sperm donations and births resulting from them are much more numerous and much more difficult to track. There are no trade groups, medical associations or government agencies that track either the donations or the number of births attributed to donor sperm.
The industry wasn't fully commercialized until the 1970s, and laws regulating it focus on testing, storing and administering the donations. Only recently has the discussion turned to the ethical repercussions.
Clark's mother, Janie Price of Newport News, was 30 and single but didn't want to wait any longer for a child when in 1988 she opted for artificial insemination.
"I talked myself into believing that if I loved her enough, it would be OK," she said. "What I didn't consider is that one's genetic component is very much a part of her identity. Why else would we spend so much money as adults researching our genealogy?"
Clark said she grew up not thinking she was any different from her friends. That changed when she was 15 and saw a show about a woman who died of a genetic heart disease that she had no idea she was at risk of developing because she had been adopted.
"That's when it really hit me for the first time that something was missing," she said.
Clark said she wasn't looking for a father figure, but rather the key to her medical past when she started the search for her biological father. She was one of the few lucky ones, finding him on an online message board weeks later. After talking by phone and e-mail for a few weeks, a DNA test confirmed what they already knew: it was 99.9902 percent positive that he was her father.
Most sperm banks across the country now give donors the option of allowing their identity to be revealed to offspring once they turn 18.
William Jaeger, director of Fairfax Cyrobank, said since the sperm bank began offering identity consent last year, only about half of the customers have chosen it.
"Yes, there's a need in certain segments of the marketplace for these types of identity consent donors, but to many people that's either not a concern or they just prefer to have an anonymous donor," Jaeger said.
He said 29 of the bank's 265 donors have agreed to have their identities revealed, which shows the chilling effect a mandatory identity requirement would have on the industry.
"I think you need to be careful what you wish for," Jaeger said. "Legislation of this type would really create a hardship for families who need donor sperm to conceive a child."
Jaeger said sperm supplies have decreased so much in the UK since it passed a law last April allowing donors' identities to be revealed to 18-year-old offspring that some clinics have closed and others are forced to import sperm to meet demands.
The American Society for Reproductive Medicine also opposes the legislation, saying it would drive up the cost for families to get help conceiving.
"It's relatively inexpensive to conceive through insemination of donor sperm," said Dr. Robert Brzyski, chair of the ethics committee for the ASRM, located in Birmingham, Ala. "If donors become scarce because the anonymity is removed, then the cost of that will increase."
Brzyski questions the motivation behind the bill.
"Some would argue that it is a strategy to curtail or eliminate reproductive technology or reproductive choices that certain elements of society don't approve of," Brzyski said.
The bill's sponsor, Republican Del. Robert G. Marshall of Prince William, is a Christian conservative who is the legislature's foremost author of legislation to curb abortion and regulate birth control methods.
Marshall said he filed the bill to protect donor-conceived children.
"I saw some little black kid who had a T-shirt on that said 'My dad's name is Donor,' and I thought, that's pathetic," Marshall said.
Marshall's bill also would require women donating eggs to sign a disclosure detailing all known risks involved, whether due to ovulation stimulation drugs or harvesting the egg. Virginia law already requires that patients be told about the success rates and donor health before being treated.
Brzyski said his association agrees with that portion of the bill. Although rare, he said some serious risks are associated with the drugs used to help women produce more eggs.
Clark said it would be great if Virginia would lead the rest of the nation in adopting such laws. And while she continues her long-distance relationship with her father, Clark said she hopes to meet him in person someday when he's gotten used to the fact that he has a biological daughter.
"If anonymous gamete donations were made illegal, then it would force the potential donors to seriously think about the repercussions of their actions, to think about the possibility of someday coming face to face with their biological child, and they have to be OK with that," Clark said.
___
The legislation is House Bill 2123.
On the Net:
Track legislation at http://legis.state.va.us (http://legis.state.va.us/)
By DENA POTTER
Associated Press Writer
Jan 28, 2007
RICHMOND, Va. - Katrina Clark grew up knowing only that her father was tall, blond and a third-year college student somewhere in northern Virginia when he donated sperm.
Now 18, Clark is trying to persuade lawmakers to ban anonymous sperm and egg donations so others won't grow up with the same questions she had.
"I just felt like something had been stripped away from me," said Clark, a deaf studies and bioethics double-major at Gallaudet University in Washington, D.C.
Virginia would be the first state to prohibit anonymous donations. Australia, the United Kingdom and a handful of other European nations have banned the practice in recent years, and each has seen donations dwindle and the cost of fertility services rise. Opponents warn that the same would happen in Virginia and also question if that is not the true intent of the bill.
There were more than 15,000 successful egg donations in the U.S. in 2004, the latest data available, resulting in about 6,000 births. Sperm donations and births resulting from them are much more numerous and much more difficult to track. There are no trade groups, medical associations or government agencies that track either the donations or the number of births attributed to donor sperm.
The industry wasn't fully commercialized until the 1970s, and laws regulating it focus on testing, storing and administering the donations. Only recently has the discussion turned to the ethical repercussions.
Clark's mother, Janie Price of Newport News, was 30 and single but didn't want to wait any longer for a child when in 1988 she opted for artificial insemination.
"I talked myself into believing that if I loved her enough, it would be OK," she said. "What I didn't consider is that one's genetic component is very much a part of her identity. Why else would we spend so much money as adults researching our genealogy?"
Clark said she grew up not thinking she was any different from her friends. That changed when she was 15 and saw a show about a woman who died of a genetic heart disease that she had no idea she was at risk of developing because she had been adopted.
"That's when it really hit me for the first time that something was missing," she said.
Clark said she wasn't looking for a father figure, but rather the key to her medical past when she started the search for her biological father. She was one of the few lucky ones, finding him on an online message board weeks later. After talking by phone and e-mail for a few weeks, a DNA test confirmed what they already knew: it was 99.9902 percent positive that he was her father.
Most sperm banks across the country now give donors the option of allowing their identity to be revealed to offspring once they turn 18.
William Jaeger, director of Fairfax Cyrobank, said since the sperm bank began offering identity consent last year, only about half of the customers have chosen it.
"Yes, there's a need in certain segments of the marketplace for these types of identity consent donors, but to many people that's either not a concern or they just prefer to have an anonymous donor," Jaeger said.
He said 29 of the bank's 265 donors have agreed to have their identities revealed, which shows the chilling effect a mandatory identity requirement would have on the industry.
"I think you need to be careful what you wish for," Jaeger said. "Legislation of this type would really create a hardship for families who need donor sperm to conceive a child."
Jaeger said sperm supplies have decreased so much in the UK since it passed a law last April allowing donors' identities to be revealed to 18-year-old offspring that some clinics have closed and others are forced to import sperm to meet demands.
The American Society for Reproductive Medicine also opposes the legislation, saying it would drive up the cost for families to get help conceiving.
"It's relatively inexpensive to conceive through insemination of donor sperm," said Dr. Robert Brzyski, chair of the ethics committee for the ASRM, located in Birmingham, Ala. "If donors become scarce because the anonymity is removed, then the cost of that will increase."
Brzyski questions the motivation behind the bill.
"Some would argue that it is a strategy to curtail or eliminate reproductive technology or reproductive choices that certain elements of society don't approve of," Brzyski said.
The bill's sponsor, Republican Del. Robert G. Marshall of Prince William, is a Christian conservative who is the legislature's foremost author of legislation to curb abortion and regulate birth control methods.
Marshall said he filed the bill to protect donor-conceived children.
"I saw some little black kid who had a T-shirt on that said 'My dad's name is Donor,' and I thought, that's pathetic," Marshall said.
Marshall's bill also would require women donating eggs to sign a disclosure detailing all known risks involved, whether due to ovulation stimulation drugs or harvesting the egg. Virginia law already requires that patients be told about the success rates and donor health before being treated.
Brzyski said his association agrees with that portion of the bill. Although rare, he said some serious risks are associated with the drugs used to help women produce more eggs.
Clark said it would be great if Virginia would lead the rest of the nation in adopting such laws. And while she continues her long-distance relationship with her father, Clark said she hopes to meet him in person someday when he's gotten used to the fact that he has a biological daughter.
"If anonymous gamete donations were made illegal, then it would force the potential donors to seriously think about the repercussions of their actions, to think about the possibility of someday coming face to face with their biological child, and they have to be OK with that," Clark said.
___
The legislation is House Bill 2123.
On the Net:
Track legislation at http://legis.state.va.us (http://legis.state.va.us/)