Per this story
It’s one of those situations that can be resolved by sensible negotiation.
The child may have a legitimate interest in knowing all sorts of things about the received parentage: Susceptibilities and predispositions; Ethnic background; some biographical information and; others.
The male parent merely wants to preserve anonymity.
It should be a simple matter to accommodate both these interests. The donor could supply information, knowing that his name would be withheld.
Although I admit to not reading the link.
Geeze that would be bad!
I suppose that a system where the donar was able to choose to disclose his name, etc. (or not) would be acceptable. On the other hand, what if you are a student in University and just need a quick buck so you go and donate some sperm. Flash forward 15 years. Now “your” progeny is looking for you. They want some cash from dear old “dad.” <shiver> That would be one awesome reason to never even think of donating sperm!
Nope. Should not. The donor reserved the anonymity right first. it’s the condition of his contract to provide goo for anonymity (and sometimes even ca$h!).
Some kid results. Where exactly is his “right” to know who the donor is come from? Kid didn’t enter into any contracts with the donor or the bank. Just because he may have a (legitemate doesn’t seem like the right word here) reasonable desire to know all 'bout dad, this desire does not give him the right to supercede a contract that pre-exists the desire.
However, it would be nice if the bank took lots of health stats & predispositions from the donor so they could create a kind of biography of the donor should it be desired. But losing at least half of your heritage is just one of the cards the kid gets dealt when he’s born. If we as a society think that’s a crummy thing to do to a kid, then we can stop all this sperm donating. Otherwise we need to honor our contracts and protect the donors.
Anonymity is not so much for the father as for the mother. Taking away anonymity will just result in fewer willing donators, and the prospective mothers will be forced to try their luck elsewhere.
Denmark has a healthy export of sperm since Sweden and some other of the neighbouring countries have removed anonymity, resulting in a dearth of sperm donators in those countries. (…or perhaps they’ve just realised the superiority of Danish stock?)
Although I see nothing wrong in making anonymity optional.
Removing anonymity on children already conceived is just wrong.
Yes. That was easy.
The medical information is key, & getting to know the real person is actually part of that.
Giving a complete medical history at the time of donation might not be particularly helpful - most donors are pretty young, and haven’t had much history yet. If, let’s say, the donor has his first heart attack at the very early age of 35, that’s something that’s definitely relevant to the offspring (it’ll change how aggressively his or her doctor will treat certain things like high-ish blood pressure), but total anonymity would make it impossible to find out about stuff ike that. I don’t see how this is a huge issue for the donor - if the sperm bank handles the exchange of information, the donor can stay completely anonymous, but the kid can have what information they need.
How does knowing a person have anything to do with the information. If the information is provided, a face to face meeting has no bearing whatsoever.