I have stated in a previous article on a different issue that we are becoming a nation of public policy promise breakers. That is, we make solemn and legally binding promises, which are relied on by people, and then break them later in the face of intense emotional narratives by other affected people. Where is the proper place of integrity here?
I bring this up because the children of anonymous sperm donors increasingly are clamoring to learn the identity of their biological fathers. From the story:
Katrina Clark and Lindsay Greenawalt have much in common. Bright women in their 20s, raised by single mothers, keenly curious about the men whose donated sperm helped give them life. Clark’s search for her father succeeded after only a month, though with a bittersweet aftermath. Greenawalt is still searching, seven years after she started — persisting despite doubts and frustrations. “I’ve dreamt of you since I was a little girl,” Greenawalt wrote to her unknown dad in a Father’s Day blog posting in June. “There are so many things I want to know about you.” Greenawalt, who lives near Cleveland, and Clark, a college student in Washington, D.C., are part of an increasingly outspoken generation of donor offspring. They want to transform the dynamics of sperm donation so the children’s interests are given more weight and it becomes easier to learn about their biological fathers.
We have seen the same dynamic play out as adopted children search for their birth parents–and in some cases, courts have ordered the confidentiality promises under which the adoptions were made, to be broken.
This is a very slippery area. But, I believe strongly that society has to have integrity. Once people rely on such laws or policies, the bargain should be kept (barring a truly urgent health or similar contingency). If people want to be found, there are websites for such re-connections. If the policy of confidentiality for donors and birth parents who give up their children comes to be seen as unwise or unjust, by all means change it–but prospectively, so as not to violate earlier assurances.
I have every sympathy for children who want to learn of their natural parents–which shows the importance of both natural parents. But that isn’t the only issue at stake here. Those who relied upon confidentiality in adopting out or siring children also have lives that would be impacted by breaking earlier promises. Besides, if we create a society whose promises and solemn legal assurances cannot be relied upon to stick, why anyone ever believe anything the society promises?
August 21st, 2010 | 2:06 pm
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Vince Humphreys and Stand In The Gap, Wesley J. Smith. Wesley J. Smith said: Confidentiality Promises to Sperm Donors and Adoptive Birth Parents Should Not Be Broken » Secondhand Smoke | http://t.co/c6Y93Gh [...]
August 21st, 2010 | 5:14 pm
I see your point: uphold the laws as they are. Integrity brings confidence in the rule of law.
If one thinks they are unfair, inform the public, debate, have a vote and possibly change them. The classic democratic process.
Sperm donor business and artificial insemination goes to a grey area (in my view). One can certainly make the argument that they have brought joy to many infertile parents. On the other hand, it corrodes the age old institution of marriage, especially the role of men in society. It also has the undertone of making children consumer goods.
I just wonder why adoption is so out of the question. It could solve so many problems.
August 22nd, 2010 | 12:15 am
Ideas and understanding of issues change and evolve over time. I think they have to if we are going to become a more humane and kind community.
There are many things that were deemed acceptable and even desirable but which we perceive now as unacceptable. For example look at the the treatment of people with a mental illness where not so long ago they were thought to be possessed by the devil or what about a time where slavery was acceptable and thought to be of benefit to society.
Donor conceived people are starting to say that the deprivation of love and the lack of knowledge about their biological family is really harmful to them.
In the past I believe that we did not have an understanding that donor conception hurts the people it creates. Donors and recipient parents used the procedure to help each other. Donors were promised that there would never be that knock on the door and recipient parents were hopeful that their children who are wanted would not need to search for their family. My husband and I thought that when we had our Donor Conceived son.
But it has not worked out that way. Donor conceived people want to know who they are and where they came from. In Victoria in Australia the law now recognises this need and from 1998 has banned anonymous donations.
Donor Conceived people born after 1998 can know their family if the family they have tells them of their donor origins of course. As a society we finally recognised that it is in the best interest of a child (who eventually becomes an adult) to know all of their family.
I think we should change policy and laws that are no longer acceptable. We know that this is going to be harmful to some people who have expected anonymity, but we now know there is more harm done to the people who were created this way then for people who gained something from the donation; recipient parents who had children and donors who received payment or a a good feeling for helping others.
As a righteous society, we have to acknowledge the pain caused by anonymous donation as courageously told to us by the people who were born from donor conception. It is only when we change laws and rules that continue to harm people that we have integrity as a society, even when it might upset the people who benefitted from it in the first place.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
August 22nd, 2010 at 12:57 am
I agree we need to acknowledge and discuss that pain. And by all means, set up web sites for people to connect if they want. But don’t “out” people who were promised confidentiality. Their pain counts too.
August 22nd, 2010 | 5:21 am
If I make a solem promise to break your legs, should society hold me to that promise?
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
August 22nd, 2010 at 11:15 am
Not in the least comparable. Where is integrity? I put this post up, in part, because we have become a society driven and whipsawed by emotional narratives and hurt feelings. That leads to chaos.
I think people who donated eggs or sperm or gave up babies for adoption have a right to their privacy, based on promises made and public policies at the time. If the policy is wrong, change it and a lot of people won’t donate. Fine with me. But honor commitments.
August 22nd, 2010 | 6:18 am
I think that you are right Romana. I too have a son who was conceived with anonymous donor eggs.
We have to right the wrongs and if that hurts a few people by doing what is needed and what is right then so be it. Let us take responsibility for what we have taken from donor conceived people.
We cannot simply tell these human beings who were intentionally created with half of their biological history taken from them, that their very being and family is of no significance to them. It is, very much. It is who they are.
Why would it cause so much pain to those who donated to be found? Why would it be so hard to meet the dc person and either agree to have a friendship/relationship or go their own ways once contact and information were supplied? What is so scary about meeting a person who is biologically a part of the history of a family? What about other members of a family who were not considered in this “donation” of a member of their family ie grandparents, siblings, aunts, uncles, cousins. They may want to know the dc conceived person even if the “donor” doesnt. These are human beings we are talking about – not possessions or commodities. Times and values and acceptability of practices change as we become more aware and intelligence prevails. Maybe, just maybe the people who “donated” and were promised confidentiality should have grown up by now and realise that there is a responsibility to the people they created.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
August 22nd, 2010 at 11:14 am
So much for integrity of systems.
August 22nd, 2010 | 7:54 am
The donor-conceived didn’t make any promises, legally binding or otherwise. If they want to go looking for their genetic parents, that’s up to them. They, rather than the parents, clinics, or donors, are the people most directly affected by donor conception, and they are the ones who have to live with the consequences the longest.
Donor anonymity was ended in the UK as a result of a case brought by two donor-conceived people to the European Court of Human Rights. Other countries that have ended donor anonymity include the Netherlands, Sweden, Norway, Iceland, Finland, Switzerland, Austria and New Zealand. Why is it taking so long in north America?
August 22nd, 2010 | 12:08 pm
I can sympathize with the wanting to know that comes with being raised by parents that are not biological parents being adopted myself. In fact, where I live, the records were recently opened. I found my mother’s brother, found out where I could find her, but decided to stop there. Why? Because there is a process to go about being reunited, and if both write in, the organization mediates the reunion. She never wrote in, and I feel the need to respect that. Giving one’s own child away is not a decision made lightly. Why would I impose my own selfish want to know upon her, and intrude in her life potentially causing much unneeded grief? I am reconciled by the fact that she made what she thought to be the right decision, and thanks to her I was raised by a family that loved me like their own (which I consider myself to be – biology might make someone else the mother in a technical sense, but to be a loving and responsible parent is an entirely different thing). More importantly, she did a courageous thing in my eyes and enabled my very existence today by not choosing the third route of abortion.
While I regard conception by sperm/egg donors to be problematic, because it does occur I would argue that confidentiality should remain for the donor. Sure, gather information about their medical histories, aesthetic looks, or even interests and education if you like. But if those that want the ability to conceive children this way instead of adoption (which is slowly disappearing as a primary choice when it comes to infertility and so on, creating a situation where abortion is really the only choice as the ‘unwanted’ remain just that), they must also accept the affects as part of the process. In fact, it is not the donors that should bear the consequences of their actions, but the parent(s) of the child who chose to conceive in this manner. By making this choice, they must deal with the consequences of having a child who may or may not feel at ease with being so conceived. Simply, the pain of the child is ultimately caused, not by the donor whose sperm/egg remain as such until fertilization, but by the parent(s) who take the step to take this ‘donation’ to the level of creation.
There is, of course, the slippery slope of legal obligations in this. Who is to say that once confidentiality is dissolved there won’t be a case for financial support? The result is that sperm (and egg) donation will eventually come to an end. In my view, this would not be a bad thing, however, those that advocate for such methods of conceiving a child should not overlook the ends of their own logic.
August 22nd, 2010 | 6:10 pm
I agree in part Wesley J Smith! Fine – if donors dont want to be known then “dont donate”. Pretty simple huh. In the first part though why do you feel that a donor’s rights should prevail over the person created by that donation? If you cant do the time. Dont do the crime. Be responsible.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
August 22nd, 2010 at 10:57 pm
Sue. Indeed. From this point forward. But people who would not have existed but for the donation, do not have the right to break past promises and perhaps break current lives to get what they want. Or, at least, they shouldn’t have that right.
August 22nd, 2010 | 7:22 pm
[...] I found a commentary by Wesley J. Smith, a consultant at the Center for Bioethics and Culture (The documentary “Eggsploitation” was recently released by the Center for Bioethics and Culture) at the First Things blog titled “Confidentiality Promises to Sperm Donors and Adoptive Birth Parents Should Not Be Broken̶… [...]
August 22nd, 2010 | 7:38 pm
Hi Wesley,
My name is Karen Clark and a co-investigator on the recent “My Daddy’s Name is Donor” study.
I replied to your commentary at the Family Scholars blog:
http://familyscholars.org/2010/08/22/a-reply-to-wesley-j-smith-on-confidentiality-promises/
August 22nd, 2010 | 9:04 pm
Did slave owners get to keep their slaves that they bought when it was legal to buy slaves?
When people donate gametes, they should know that there’s a possibility that the person will find them someday, whatever any promises or contracts said.
August 22nd, 2010 | 9:08 pm
I am also adopted and find this issue interesting. It seems that in recent years, anti adoption forces have sprung up in order to argue that it is better for a child to have never existed at all than to grow up not knowing “who they are.” Well, your biological family is NOT who you are. You are who you are, and who you are is made up of the experiences and perspectives you gain over time. It bothers me to hear people speak as if the adopted child will never be whole-as if his or her identity is entirely dependent on knowing his or her biological origin. It’s just not true. As for donor issues, I do have sympathy for people who feel uncomfortable not knowing, especially if they don’t have a father or father figure in their life. However, I think reunification and confidentiality should be voluntary on the part of the biological parent/donor.
August 23rd, 2010 | 12:12 am
Safepres, how would you know there’s no difference? You’re adopted, you don’t know what it is like to be biologically related to your parents and grandparents and cousins and siblings. I know what it is like to have unrelated close family members, and it’s not the same. You’re like someone who has never taken LSD saying it’s just like marijuana.
And all the evidence and tradition indicates that there is a “queue of souls” from which new babies are ensouled. There aren’t any souls that get thwarted from existing by people not getting pregnant. When someone doesn’t get pregnant, the soul just waits for the next person that does, and exists in that family. So there aren’t any people who would not exist but for sperm donation, their souls simply came to ensoul the next baby that exists.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
August 23rd, 2010 at 12:49 am
John Howard: For you it isn’t the same. You don’t know what it is like for other people.
August 23rd, 2010 | 1:29 pm
“Safepres, how would you know there’s no difference? You’re adopted, you don’t know what it is like to be biologically related to your parents and grandparents and cousins and siblings. I know what it is like to have unrelated close family members, and it’s not the same. You’re like someone who has never taken LSD saying it’s just like marijuana.”
John-actually, I do happen to know the paternal side of my biological family. So, to put it your way, I have been high on crack and I can tell you that it’s just like being high on crack. To put it another way, it DOESN’T matter. Why? Because no one gets to choose his or her parents. You are certainly free to believe whatever you want about how people become ensouled, but my particular belief system holds that God creates each person’s soul and the standing of that soul has nothing to do with his or her biological heritage. BTW, I certainly never said that people should get pregnant for pregnancy’s sake, so I’m not sure what your point is in bringing that up at all. Wesley, thank you for pointing out that people’s experiences can only tell them so much about those of others, esp. on this relatively sensitive issue.
August 23rd, 2010 | 9:45 pm
John:
“When people donate gametes, they should know that there’s a possibility that the person will find them someday, whatever any promises or contracts said.”
This is true – the opening of records has demonstrated the breaking of such promises. However, the appeal for donors tends to be to those that are younger. Furthermore, there is usually monetary compensation involved making it appealing to those who are lacking. Take what you want from that.
But then this:
“You’re like someone who has never taken LSD saying it’s just like marijuana.”
…well there are all kinds of wrong with this which I refrain from disparaging for fear of legitimizing such an empty and thoughtless analogy.
I do have a couple of things to add to Safepres’s post, which was very good.
I get the impression that you are not the one who is not biologically related. Considering there are now at least two posters who can speak on the issue with experience, I take your position to be one lacking in both experience and knowledge. Your perception of ‘difference’ is highly prejudicial considering that you are sitting on the outside making uninformed judgments about whether or not one feels like an outsider. My adoptive parents are no less my parents, my adopted brother no less my brother, and my biological children are no MORE my children than I was/am to my parents. My want to know stems from the curiosity that comes with the perplexity of life in general (something that is not always clear during the coming of age in the life of a child). I am happy to know ABOUT my parents but knowing them wouldn’t cause me to change my mind about my true parents who sacrifice(d) for me and love(d) me beyond measure.
If biology were the superior element in this all, why are so many cases of neglect and abuse inflicted by biological parents? Responsibility, love and sacrifice – that is what makes a family.
And back to the issue. If there is pain caused to the child conceived through IVF (and the like) I still contend that responsibility is with the parents who chose to conceive. In the past-tense, if the contract stated that non-identifying information were to alone be accessible, well, then that must be accepted as true before any action is taken. In terms of people who choose this route: If you really cared about the child’s welfare, you would teach and show them that they are no different, that they are accepted as one’s own, and as much as possible assist the child in bearing the burden of pain, if any, that came with YOUR decision to override nature and become a creator.
Donors don’t make a market for donation. The use of such donations do.
August 23rd, 2010 | 10:44 pm
John Howard:
Speak for yourself. I have two siblings. One is adopted. That fact has never weighed much on how I feel about them.
On the larger issue – I agree and am sort of mystified that people think society can function in a world where every long-term agreement is subject to revision in the future when people get their emotions sufficiently keyed up.
August 24th, 2010 | 2:09 am
Just some more thoughts-
As Avdotya said, the important thing is having parents who love you. Many kids grow up in biological families where they are beaten. Are they somehow better off because they live with their biological family? No! I have parents who would jump in front of a bus to protect me. Would my biological father do that? I don’t know. That’s why my parents, who raised me, are my “real” parents. They are the ones who did the parenting.
Another thought-my brother, who is my parent’s biological child, told me that one of the main reasons he is pro life is because of me, recognizing that I would not be here had my biological mother made a different decision. He made this decision some time in high school when I was little (he’s ten years older.) To me, that is a beautiful and touching thing, and speaks to the deep connection between the two of us, even though we do not share each other’s blood.
August 24th, 2010 | 2:19 am
You guys are mistaking overall quality of a relationship with the specific feelings I’m talking about that come from being someone’s biological child or sibling. Even if bio-parents are terrible parents, they are still bio-parents and that meaning exists, it is a reality that has significance. There have been too many Shakespeare plays and movies based on the special profound relationship and expectations that come from being someone’s child, mother or sister, and too much emotion loaded into the physical meaning of coming from the sexual congress and pregnancy and birth of the same mother and father, to try to pretend that it’s meaningless . When the mom baking your birthday cake shares the significance of the anniversary of your birth because it was the day she gave birth, that adds meaning to the relationship, that is the basis of the relationship, the permanence of it, that transcends how much you love or respect her for being a loving caretaker and provider and great person. It’s offensive to minimize or deny that meaning, just because it’s been denied to you.
And SparkVac’s case seems to indicate that having an adopted sibling undermines family relations so that genetic siblings don’t appreciate their shared parentage as much as siblings should.
August 24th, 2010 | 3:37 am
The fact that this secrecy was requested shows how contrary the work is to normal and healthy sentiments. Secret parentage serves no state or human interest. The entire action is little more than buying and selling children. It deserves no protection in law.
August 24th, 2010 | 8:35 am
“When the mom baking your birthday cake shares the significance of the anniversary of your birth because it was the day she gave birth, that adds meaning to the relationship, that is the basis of the relationship, the permanence of it, that transcends how much you love or respect her for being a loving caretaker and provider and great person. It’s offensive to minimize or deny that meaning, just because it’s been denied to you.”
John-
What right do you have to be “offended” by the opinion that adoptive family members are just as significant as those with whom you share blood?
Honestly, I think that you must have had some terrible experience or been raised in a very prejudiced environment to have such a perverse idea of adoption’s role in the family.
Moreover, WHY in God’s name would we place so much significance on our mother describing our birthday as “the night she gave birth”? Birth-Whew! How shocking and unique! I am SO SORRY I missed out on THAT. I mean, my self concept is really going to suffer from now on because you’ve shown me how devastating it is that my Mom couldn’t recount shoving me out of her vagina on my birthday!
August 24th, 2010 | 8:40 am
And, I’m sure that as a result of reading your commentary, SparkVac now has a wonderful superiority complex because he, like you, also entered the world through his mom’s birth canal!
August 26th, 2010 | 8:16 am
Timon said:
“The fact that this secrecy was requested shows how contrary the work is to normal and healthy sentiments. Secret parentage serves no state or human interest. The entire action is little more than buying and selling children. It deserves no protection in law.”
I think I agree with Timon. Maybe not in the case of adoption, where the birth parents’ circumstances might provide good reasons for anonymity, but certainly in the case of voluntary donation. An expectation of anonymity and a bar against offspring getting that information seems to go against the natural law.
And as an unjust law is no law at all, so an unjust promise is no promise at all. I want to live in a world of trustworthy promises as much as Wesley does, but I think this particular case is an exception.
September 5th, 2010 | 11:31 am
I agree with you. All those donors went in under what turns out to be false pretenses. Change the law not retroactive. At least then all new donors know what they are getting into. Gee am I wrong or can a donor get multiple knocks at the door. It’s called the age of entitlement. Now they are grown up and they only want what they want. That’s what they were taught growing up and that is all they know as adults. If that weren’t the case they would be reasonable and compromise. Check out the nastiness on any of the adoptions reform sites.
Can’t trust your own gov’t.
September 5th, 2010 | 7:02 pm
Here’s one of the problems. I doing research on this issue we find that most women who placed children that are now old enough to seek contact were not promised anonymity.
Truly they were not. If you’re talking baby scoop era when adoptions were pushed on women who often didn’t want to place their children (read Girls Who Went Away, or Wake up Little Suzie), the larger portion of these women desperately wanted their children and would love to find their children.
I know hundreds of first parents (biological parents if you’re so inclined) and the reality of the “scared birthmother” who is terrified of being found is highly exaggerated. They do exist and they make web pages like this:
http://www.womaninhiding.org/newsite/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1:welcome
That have devestating consequences on the open records movement.
If you have ever sat with adoptees who have tried to find their first parents only to find a grave, or to find that they have no means of ever knowing if their first parent is alive or not, it’s really devastating to witness. And if you have ever sat with women sobbing their eyes out twenty years after losing a child to adoption with no hope of ever finding them, I gaurantee you would feel differently about finding a way to make it possible for them to find each other.
Option to refuse contact, fine!
But there has to be a way to help these people find each other legally, when so many human beings are searching and aching and the law is holding all the answers they need.
Most firstmoms were not promised confidentiality and don’t want it. If a company is given a license to sell a drug but then the drug is proven to cause severe health problems, should the company retain it’s right to sell the product despite that it’s making people sick? Answer no, despite that they were “promised” the ability to sell the drug, they lose that right if it’s causing too much harm to human beings.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact