crying over spilt seed (II)
By Diogenes (articles ) | Jun 07, 2006
"As the Use of Donor Sperm Increases, Secrecy Can Be a Health Hazard." The NYT bemoans onanist loans:
Sperm donor No. F827 aced all the tests. He was healthy, and he said his parents and grandparents were, too. Under a microscope, his chromosomes looked perfect. He also turned out to be quite prolific: his deposits to a Michigan sperm bank during the 1990's produced 11 children.
But he passed a serious gene defect to five of those children, a blood disease that leaves them at risk for leukemia and in need of daily shots of an expensive drug to prevent infections. They also have a 50-50 chance of passing the disease to their children.
Male Gamete Donor Day is coming up June 18th. I hope Daddy Dearest F827 enjoys the cards he receives. Will he, I wonder, be able to read them?
All comments are moderated. To lighten our editing burden, only current donors are allowed to Sound Off. If you are a donor, log in to see the comment form; otherwise please support our work, and Sound Off!
Posted by: molly -
Jun. 07, 2006 10:14 PM ET USA
There is little need to explain why we find sperm donorship wrong. But this seems to imply that passing on a genetic defect is some kind of punishment. There is a disconnect in this message. Or so it seems to me. Procreation as God intended it is what we believe in. But in natural procreation there is the same chance for genetic mishap. So what exactly is the point here?
Posted by: Coemgen -
Jun. 07, 2006 6:20 PM ET USA
At the very least the secrecy must be abolished so that the donor recipient and resulting children can sue the donor for damages. If the secrecy isn't abolished soon enough then the grandchildren of the donor might also be able to sue. Oh what a tangled web we weave when we enter a bathroom with a porno magazine and a collection cup...
Posted by: Laity1 -
Jun. 07, 2006 3:11 PM ET USA
The matter might be better policed by the CPSC than the FDA.