A while back I read a friend’s discussion mentioning a German court decision stating that children born through sperm donation have the right to know who the donor is. In another case, a young woman used her boyfriend’s frozen sperm without permission and had three children. The court similarly ruled that the man had child support obligations.
Reproduction banks, commonly called sperm banks, trace back some 200 years to 1776, when Italian scientist Lazzaro Spallanzani discovered that male sperm could recover its viability after thawing, laying the conceptual foundation for later sperm freezing technology.
Commercial-scale operations began in 1960s America and over the following decade saw approximately 1,000 successful instances of conception using frozen sperm globally. In other words, children born then would be 40-50 years old now, while donors would be 70-80. Current statistics show that worldwide legitimate cases of conception using frozen sperm now reach approximately 60,000 annually.
I mention this historical data because general public awareness of this new technology at longest goes back 50 years (if military secret experiments count it could be nearly 100 years), and due to legal restrictions, has really only become widely known in the last decade—such as when the ROC Artificial Reproduction Act was formally enacted in 2007.
I remember taking a medical ethics class in university that discussed legal and moral issues around frozen sperm and test-tube babies, though I certainly forget the details (pride before a fall!). Anyway, new technology implementations naturally don’t produce perfect legal systems on the first try.
Legal and Human Nature Conflict
In typical donation scenarios, both donor and recipient information are strictly protected. Donors can’t know their biological materials’ future or be allowed to, mainly to prevent unwanted complications. Recipients only receive a document with information for future tracking and management purposes. (This is covered in Article 14, Paragraph 2 of our Artificial Reproduction Act)
However, does this hard-edged contractual restriction conflict with unknown human nature? This has always been an interesting question for me personally.
Articles 23-25 of our Artificial Reproduction Act state that children born to recipients are considered legitimate children of the recipient and their spouse. Meaning the biological material, though provided by an unnamed donor, still carries legal obligations and rights. This regulation supposedly aims to preserve social and family integrity. Conversely, recipients and their children cannot know the donor’s identity—is this because law treats biological material as merely a property issue? Human rights and property rights somehow come into conflict here (laughs).
Impacts from International Cases
Let’s return to those two cases from the article’s opening: though I don’t know the reasoning behind the rulings, results-wise, they’ve shattered many past conventions and brought unknown impacts. For instance, whether donor willingness decreases, or whether habitual donors must now start supporting various children, etc.
The “potential future obligation” factor is hardly good news for most donors—it could even reduce people’s willingness to donate reproductive cells in the future, which would be adding insult to injury for those with infertility problems or other needs.
Recommendations and Prospects
But conversely, if an effective solution existed—say, establishing an impartial third-party institution where donors and recipients could, under certain conditions, communicate anonymously through the institution, and through mutual consent and proper counseling, become acquainted under regulated conditions—wouldn’t that be wonderful? Of course, data protection and personal safety remain the most important concerns. The former can follow blood bank management practices while the latter can use background investigations and personality assessments through the institution.
One more thought: however strictly managed, problems might still arise, but when both parties are willing and properly counseled, I personally believe the risks are lower than the warmth between humans. :)
- ROC Artificial Reproduction Act.
- Measures for Inquiring Parent-Child Relationships of Artificially Conceived Children—amended 2011.10.20.