You and I are on the same page that the lack of fair compensation is likely the main reason why there aren’t as many enthusiastic donors in the UK as in the US. Here we have to screen and reject many unsuitable candidates who eagerly apply, because the interest is so great. As a believer in the free market, I am with you that people act out of self-interest. It has always been that way since the dawn of mankind and it’s not necessarily bad, within limits.

As a government, if you want to encourage certain behavior, ie having children without a family, being idle instead of looking for work, then you reward it by policies such as welfare. If you want to discourage certain behavior, such as starting a business and stimulating the economy, then you punish it by policies such as bloated regulations and high taxation. My facetious tone here does not obscure the truth of these observations.

Best wishes in your efforts to advocate more freedom of choice for your country’s people!

For example, sperm donor numbers started dropping in the UK in 2000, well before the change in the anonymity law here. Numbers have actually increased slightly recently (see the HFEA website) but there are still not enough. I’m not saying anonymity is not a factor, but that’s all it is. One factor.

Most UK fertility treatment is privately funded as it’s not something the NHS will/can properly fund. So, as I think is clear from my comment above, money-making becomes a really significant factor in the whole debate and somewhat distorts it.

A highly successful clinic in London (The Bridge Centre http://www.thebridgecentre.co.uk/ ) issued this statement on Friday.

===========================
Everyone’s missing the point…

The London Bridge Fertility, Gynaecology and Genetics Centre (Bridge for short) maintains one of the UK’s largest sperm banks and offers the following and different perspective on the shortage of donor gametes – both sperm and eggs, which is affecting the lives and happiness of many infertile people in the UK.
It is only partly true that the shortages are caused by the removal of donor anonymity, although we believe it inappropriate to place the rights of unborn children over those of living parents and donors who desire anonymity.
It is also not the case that the shortage is caused by ‘lack of awareness’ – the position of the National Gamete Donation Trust.
The shortage of donor gametes comes down to simple economics – it’s all about money.
We do not live in an altruistic society – perhaps we never did. The simple truth is that the ‘expense only’ payments we are allowed to make for donation are simply insufficient – for both genders of donors.
We work to laws and regulations made by MPs, committees and regulatory bodies. All the people involved in making the regulations are paid to do what they do and receive expenses on top of their salaries and fees.
We feel it is hypocritical of them to expect donors to behave differently.
Donors also have bills to pay and, out of every possible 100 sperm donors we reach, 85% decline for financial reasons – the time and effort involved is simply too great.
If we were able to compensate sperm donors fairly – at the rate of about £50 per donation instead of the current £17.50 reimbursement of expenses, there would be no shortage and the quality of the sperm available would be higher.
The same is true for egg donation, where the position is even worse as the demands of the donation process and the compensation offered are ridiculously far apart, involving egg donors in serious financial loss in addition to the discomfort and risk involved.
No wonder hundreds, possibly thousands, of British women go abroad for treatment and others live empty lives without children.
We hear many highminded opinions about the need for altruistic donation – coming from people who are well paid in terms of their time and expenses and, it seems, indifferent to the consequences of their highmindedness.
It is another example of how our lawmakers and regulators are out of touch with the wants and needs of real people.
=================================================

Looking forward to your full post about this issue. But can I suggest that you have a look at what UK organisations – like the British Fertility Society, the HFEA, the National Gamete Donation Trust and the main patient group Infertility Network UK – are saying about this before you start.

Best wishes

PJ

Thanks for sharing. Not surprisingly, there are multiple sides to this argument.

The needs of a child are many. The need to a chance at life certainly does not take a back seat to the need to trace one’s genetics. Sure, it would be nice to have both.

I acknowledge that there are many adopted children and children of donor sperm who are now adults and who are in anguish about finding their genetic roots. On the flip side, there are many of those who have no interest at all.

To paraphrase the sentiments of the ones whom I’ve encountered personally, “My mother and father are the two people who have raised me, protected me and loved me all my life. They are my true mother and father. I really have no interest in finding my (birth parents / sperm provider).”

Another way to phrase the question is “Do we deny the right to exist, to be born to these people, so that others in their situation will never be born and have to face the the anguish of not knowing the source of their genetic origins”. When looking at the human side of things, we really shouldn’t overlook the very fact that “parenthood” consists of love and nurturing, and not just genetic material.

Right now, some people in the UK have an outlet, in that they can go to other countries with less restrictive policies in their quest to have a family.

This is a excellent topic, and I have made a note to myself to write a full post on this in the future. Thanks for your comment.

It may be that ‘anonymity is safe’ in the US, but there’s more money to be made from treating desperate fertility patients (i.e. lots and lots) than the money generated by donor-conceived people finding their donors (i.e. none).

If you’re balancing the needs of patients against the needs of a child, surely the child’s needs come first, however difficult that might be. Children – and donors – are not commodities. They’re human beings.