Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • COVID-19 Articles
    • Obituary notices
  • Authors & Reviewers
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
    • Open access
    • Patient engagement
  • Members & Subscribers
    • Benefits for CMA Members
    • CPD Credits for Members
    • Subscribe to CMAJ Print
    • Subscription Prices
    • Obituary notices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
    • Trousse média 2023
    • Avis de décès
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN

User menu

Search

  • Advanced search
CMAJ
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN
CMAJ

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • COVID-19 Articles
    • Obituary notices
  • Authors & Reviewers
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
    • Open access
    • Patient engagement
  • Members & Subscribers
    • Benefits for CMA Members
    • CPD Credits for Members
    • Subscribe to CMAJ Print
    • Subscription Prices
    • Obituary notices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
    • Trousse média 2023
    • Avis de décès
  • Visit CMAJ on Facebook
  • Follow CMAJ on Twitter
  • Follow CMAJ on Pinterest
  • Follow CMAJ on Youtube
  • Follow CMAJ on Instagram
Salon

Donor conception and children’s rights: a parent’s decision

Cal Greene
CMAJ February 22, 2011 183 (3) 400; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.101716
Cal Greene
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

The concept of family is changing. You do not have to agree with it, but the reality is that gay, lesbian, transgendered, single, disabled and infertile persons/couples have a wish (and perhaps a biological need) to have children and are seeking assisted reproduction procedures to establish families. They do this through sperm donation, egg donation, embryo donation, surrogacy and adoption. Increasingly, we are creating unique family situations in which the future children have no say. Anonymous sperm donation is just one example.

Currently, there is a debate on the need for sperm donor identification.1 In the past, virtually all sperm donor treatments used an anonymous donor. Today, there are donors at the sperm banks used in Canada who are agreeable to being contacted by their genetic children. Potential parents can choose such donors on behalf of their children should they wish to do so.

I am surprised how seldom parents seeking donor insemination request donors who are willing to be contacted in the future by their genetic offspring. This is in spite of mandatory professional counselling of all patients undergoing third-party reproduction that promotes openness and advocates telling children from early childhood the method by which they were conceived.

Furthermore, in all the years I have been the medical director of one of the busiest fertility clinics in Canada (at least 200 new recipients per year), I have yet to receive a single request from a child conceived through third-party reproduction to be put in contact with the donor. Obviously in some of these families the treatment is not revealed, which partly explains this fact. However, at our clinic at least half of our patients do reveal to their children their genetic origins. Apparently these children and young adults do not feel compelled to seek out the sperm donor.

It is not my intention to devalue or minimize the sincere feelings and perspectives of the donor adults cited in Margaret Somerville’s recent Salon article.1 Those citations deserve due respect and reflection, but they are only the experiences and feeling of those individuals. Although the comments are thought-provoking, they in no way provide us with a better understanding of how the majority of children conceived through donor insemination regard this issue, nor do they provide a solid basis for formulating public policy.

Figure
Image courtesy of © 2011 Jupiterimages Corp.

It is unfortunate that there is very little high quality and reliable social science research to inform health care providers who counsel patients contemplating donor insemination as a treatment to build their families. We can only provide the best available advice, which always changes over time and is never definitive. At the present time, it is suggested that parents tell their children early, tell them the truth and pick a donor who is willing to be contacted if that fits the value system of the patients. However, the decision as to what, if anything, the child is told remains at the discretion of the parent or parents.

Somerville brings up some interesting questions, but she does not have evidence-based answers. In our multicultural society, we have citizens from every country and culture in the world. Each Canadian has his or her own traditions, perspectives and value systems with regard to conception, reproduction and parenting. Canadians treasure their reproductive autonomy and do not want others in their bedrooms nor do they want them in their nurseries telling them how to parent their children.

We should listen to the opinions of donor-conceived children and validate their feelings. As much as possible, we should help them come to terms with the decisions concerning their genetic heritage. I do not argue with Somerville that we should carefully promote the best interests of children conceived through assisted reproduction — that principle is already enshrined in Canadian legislation. But who determines the best interests of the child with respect to possibly revealing and identifying the sperm donor in the future? It can only be the intended parents. It is just one of the many important decisions they will make for that child. Our obligation as health care providers is to provide potential parents with the best information available so they can make an informed choice for their family and their children.

This article is a response to Margaret Somerville’s Salon article, which was published at cmaj.ca on Jan. 10, 2011.

Reference

  1. ↵
    1. Somerville M
    . Donor conception and children’s rights: “first, do no harm” CMAJ 2011;183:280.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Canadian Medical Association Journal: 183 (3)
CMAJ
Vol. 183, Issue 3
22 Feb 2011
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author

Article tools

Respond to this article
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
To sign up for email alerts or to access your current email alerts, enter your email address below:
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on CMAJ.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Donor conception and children’s rights: a parent’s decision
(Your Name) has sent you a message from CMAJ
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the CMAJ web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Donor conception and children’s rights: a parent’s decision
Cal Greene
CMAJ Feb 2011, 183 (3) 400; DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.101716

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
‍ Request Permissions
Share
Donor conception and children’s rights: a parent’s decision
Cal Greene
CMAJ Feb 2011, 183 (3) 400; DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.101716
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Reference
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • The law and physician-assisted dying
  • Care, compassion, respect
  • Revisiting Rodriguez
Show more Salon

Similar Articles

 

View Latest Classified Ads

Content

  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • Collections
  • Sections
  • Blog
  • Podcasts
  • Alerts
  • RSS
  • Early releases

Information for

  • Advertisers
  • Authors
  • Reviewers
  • CMA Members
  • CPD credits
  • Media
  • Reprint requests
  • Subscribers

About

  • General Information
  • Journal staff
  • Editorial Board
  • Advisory Panels
  • Governance Council
  • Journal Oversight
  • Careers
  • Contact
  • Copyright and Permissions
  • Accessibiity
  • CMA Civility Standards
CMAJ Group

Copyright 2023, CMA Impact Inc. or its licensors. All rights reserved. ISSN 1488-2329 (e) 0820-3946 (p)

All editorial matter in CMAJ represents the opinions of the authors and not necessarily those of the Canadian Medical Association or its subsidiaries.

To receive any of these resources in an accessible format, please contact us at CMAJ Group, 500-1410 Blair Towers Place, Ottawa ON, K1J 9B9; p: 1-888-855-2555; e: cmajgroup@cmaj.ca

Powered by HighWire