Unlike several others that cost to join the follow group is a new registry and online group that is free to join:
http://donorchildren.com/
Thoughts of donor conception practices from a donor offspring whose views changed dramatically once he had children of his own. This event has lead me on a quest to find my true identity, heritage, family health history and genetic relations (both donor and siblings), for myself and for my children.
Friday, December 13, 2013
Friday, September 13, 2013
It's a Small World - Especially with DNA Testing
From my Y-DNA test that I did with FamilyTreeDNA I only have 11 matches at the 12 marker range and that includes 2 that are at the 1 step range (that is one marker that is different by a one step mutation). This is from a database that is almost half a million men (500,000) that have tested with FTDNA.
This number of matches is not surprising even though there are many others who will have a much larger number of matches.
The surprising part is that one of my matches, is another donor conceived man in the USA (I live in Australia).
A man that I have had communications with for several years.
While we are very distant genetic cousins, we do share a common ancestor that is likely to have occurred about 100 generations ago or about 2000 years. (If a faster mutation rate is used in the calculations this could be reduced to about 50 generations or about 1000 years, but the slower mutation rate is more conservative).
So while we share a commonality in both being donor conceived we also share a common ancestor, and while we all share one if we go far enough back in time, it is quite ironic that some of us also share significant familial links beyond just being donor conceived.
Such a link might be meaningless to many people but for those of us that have no knowledge of our paternal heritage such information is interesting nonetheless.
The power of DNA genealogy makes the world a somewhat smaller place.
This number of matches is not surprising even though there are many others who will have a much larger number of matches.
The surprising part is that one of my matches, is another donor conceived man in the USA (I live in Australia).
A man that I have had communications with for several years.
While we are very distant genetic cousins, we do share a common ancestor that is likely to have occurred about 100 generations ago or about 2000 years. (If a faster mutation rate is used in the calculations this could be reduced to about 50 generations or about 1000 years, but the slower mutation rate is more conservative).
So while we share a commonality in both being donor conceived we also share a common ancestor, and while we all share one if we go far enough back in time, it is quite ironic that some of us also share significant familial links beyond just being donor conceived.
Such a link might be meaningless to many people but for those of us that have no knowledge of our paternal heritage such information is interesting nonetheless.
The power of DNA genealogy makes the world a somewhat smaller place.
Monday, September 09, 2013
On Being Wanted
This is something I wrote elsewhere but thought I'd share it here:
Before I start on that I will preface the following with saying that in
the outcomes for donor conceived people there is a whole rainbow of
emotions with some being completely happy and others who are traumatised
and everywhere else in between. All views are equally valid but we also
have to remember that this is a lifetime journey where views can change
dramatically during that time (they certainly have for me). For others
they will not change at all. Also note that I often use the term "some"
because not all are of the same perspective.
Ok now on to being "wanted". I have heard this phrase used more times than I can count as well as the matching statement that other children are born into other scenarios which some people view as worse. What these statements do to "some" offspring is they impose what is termed in the literature as existential debt. This is where the child is aware of the efforts and costs that their parents went through in obtaining them. Because of this, "if" they do have any negative feelings they may be afraid of voicing these in fear of hurting their parents feelings. This is termed disenfranchised grief whereby the donor conceived person feels unable to express or process their grief.
We as a society recognise the tragedy when a child is born into a situation whereby the father may have run off (dead beat dad) or the tragedy of when the birth parents for whatever reason are unable to care for the child and have had to give that child up for adoption. Yet we are still having difficulty acknowledging the loss for donor conceived people simply because the kinship separation was planned and that the child was wanted in this manner.
Just as in any family the outcomes for any child will be varied depending on a plethora of circumstances one of which is NOT being wanted. Just as evidence of bad outcomes can occur from unplanned parenthood, so too can evidence of good outcomes. Conversely the same can be argued for when parenthood was planned and the child wanted, there can be bad and good outcomes.
This post is not meant to offend anyone in any way but rather as a means of presenting another perspective that some people may not have thought about before. I do not imply that every DC person will feel this way, far from it, but many that I have had discussions with over a great many years do have difficulty dealing with the use of the term "wanted" (others also feel extremely happy about being wanted). Additionally just as some parents and donors can be upset about terminology and various posts, so too can the donor conceived.
Monday, July 15, 2013
The Fallacy of Donors Wanting to be Anonymous
This is a guest post from a former donor, Ian Smith, who wishes to dispell the myth that all donors who donated under conditions of anonymity wish to remain so. Clinics and Doctors are wrongfully speaking on these peoples behalf disseminating misinformation through the public media. Ian wants to set the record straight:
Sperm donors – emerging from the shadows
The voice of the sperm donor is
often the one less heard in debates on donor
conception. In relation to the issue of anonymity and possible
removal of that anonymity the donor's views are often the subject of conjecture,
assumption and assertion. But are
those assumptions right? For the most part I think not.
Members of the medical profession
and others are often quick to assert the importance of the anonymity which
donors were (apparently) promised in the 1970’s and 80s when there was
significant expansion of donor conception practices in
Australia. Typical examples of such
assertions can be seen here http://www.theage.com.au/comment/allow-sperm-donors-the-right-to-maintain-their-past-anonymity-20130507-2j5o4.html and here http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/why-the-promise-to-sperm-donors-must-be-honoured-20120410-1wmus.html
Recently and
increasingly sperm donors are speaking up for themselves – and for the most part
they reject the notion that they wish to hide behind veils of anonymity. I am a member of that group of former
donors who are speaking up.
See for example this piece http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/father-figures-20111112-1ncxt.html which in turn encouraged other former
donors to make contact with me.
Peter Liston is one such – a piece featuring an interview with him here
http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/sperm-donor-steps-up-for-offspring-who-want-to-know-20121208-2b2ej.html
and a piece on which Peter and I collaborated here http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/opinion/allow-our-donor-children-to-know-their-heritage/story-fni0ffsx-1226679227163
From these connections with former
donors a group has evolved – the Melbourne Anonymous Donors (MADMen). Using that group as the base I
recently undertook a small research study exploring the views of sperm
donors. That has now been published
in a special – donor conception focused - edition of the Australian Journal of
Adoption http://www.nla.gov.au/openpublish/index.php/aja/issue/current.
I interviewed seven former donors
from the 1970s and 80s. Key issues
explored included:
- Motivations for being a donor
- Did donors give informed consent?
- Their thoughts of the children born
- The issue of anonymity – was it promised or imposed?
- Contact – actual or potential
- What name to use for sperm donors?
- Attitudes to proposed changes to Victorian legislation to remove anonymity for pre-1988 donors.
- Reflections and observations on being a sperm donor – with the benefit of hindsight, would they do it again?
While the sample in this study is
small, it nonetheless opens a window to an area that has until now been largely
shrouded in mystery and thus open to the kind of assertions by and from the
medical fraternity which are noted at the beginning of this post. The interviews demonstrate that – at
least for this group – the children fathered are far from forgotten. Rather these men think actively of
them and hope to meet and know their offspring (and in some cases have achieved
that. Far from being a fearful of the removal of anonymity the past sperm
donors whose views are reported here will welcome and embrace such change.
The full article: “Sperm donors – moving out of the shadows. Contact and connection
between former sperm donors and their offspring - experiences and perspectives”
is worth a read. You can find
it here: http://www.nla.gov.au/openpublish/index.php/aja/article/view/3061/3607
I welcome comment and questions on this topic: iwsmith@netspace.net.au
Ian.
Saturday, July 06, 2013
Genetic Genealogy Trumps Anonymity
Here is the abstract to a paper I just wrote and published on this subject. The link below will take you to the full article, just click on the full text pdf link on the Australian Journal of Adoption website (it is open access (free)).
Building a Family Tree: Donor-Conveived People, DNA Tracing and Donor 'Anonymity'
Building a Family Tree: Donor-Conveived People, DNA Tracing and Donor 'Anonymity'
Damian Adams, Sonia Allan
Abstract
Genealogical tracing of ancestors has existed across cultures and
throughout history for thousands of years. Today it is a popular
pastime for many, with motivations ranging from a desire to place
themselves and their family within a larger historical picture, to
preserving the past for future generations, to having a sense of
self-satisfaction in accurate storytelling. It may also serve to assist
people in framing their identify and building a picture of themselves.
It may create a sense of connectedness and kinship. This is so for
donor-conceived people, as it is with many others that search for
information about their family history and heritage.
This paper considers the obstacles to searching that donor-conceived people face. In particular, the secrecy that has surrounded donor conception has meant that many do not have access to the records that would identify their donor(s) or siblings. It examines the use of DNA testing, to assist. It is shown that, while proving a useful tool for some, such testing may not be enough for others. That donor-conceived people are denied access to records that would provide them with the information they seek is questioned. The authors therefore support laws that would provide access to records. Options of enabling contact vetoes or contact preferences are explored, as a way to ensure that people are comfortable that privacy and confidentiality will be protected.
This paper considers the obstacles to searching that donor-conceived people face. In particular, the secrecy that has surrounded donor conception has meant that many do not have access to the records that would identify their donor(s) or siblings. It examines the use of DNA testing, to assist. It is shown that, while proving a useful tool for some, such testing may not be enough for others. That donor-conceived people are denied access to records that would provide them with the information they seek is questioned. The authors therefore support laws that would provide access to records. Options of enabling contact vetoes or contact preferences are explored, as a way to ensure that people are comfortable that privacy and confidentiality will be protected.
Tuesday, July 02, 2013
New BBC Documentary on DC
I have no connection with this production. The producers have asked me to circulate information regarding their request to speak to people. Please contact them directly if you are interested:
Award-winning British
filmmaker Sue Bourne has recently been commissioned by BBC2 to make a major new
documentary about the Danish sperm industry and is looking for people to assist
her with her research.
What is intriguing is the
fact that this small country has become the
major player in the sperm bank business internationally. Why has this happened,
and what are the possible consequences? This film will follow the compelling
human stories at the heart of the international sperm trade, to increase public
understanding of this complex, fascinating and often-misunderstood issue.
We are very keen to talk to
all the people who are involved in each stage of the sperm bank business – the
clientele coming to Denmark or having the sperm shipped to where they live; the
donors, the staff, the clinics and of course the donor conceived children as
well.
In particular we would love
to speak to families and individuals who were created using a Danish sperm
donor. We would like to understand more about what it’s like growing up as a DC
child? What are your thoughts and feeling around the anonymity debate? Have you
ever felt the need to track down your donor? What advice would you give to
individuals and couples who are considering donor insemination today? Whatever
your point of view, we would love to hear from you.
At this stage we are just
having informal phone conversations with people. These chats can be completely
confidential and there is no obligation to take part in the final film. It
would just be great if you could help us increase our understanding of all the
different issues involved.
If you might be interested in
having an initial phone conversation with Sue’s team, please do get in touch
with Sarah Harris (Assistant Producer)
at Wellpark Productions on 020 8932 0133 / 07958710362 or sarahhar@gmail.com
Sunday, May 12, 2013
Past Donor Assumptions
Currently in Australia there is quite a vocal backlash from
the fertility clinics about the possibility of introducing retrospective access
for donor conceived people to identifying information on the gamete donors
(their biological fathers and mothers). Typically there will be claims that it
would be erroneous and a serious breach of trust and perhaps even contract to
introduce retrospectivity onto donors who were originally promised anonymity.
Whether or not you agree with retrospectivity is not something I wish to debate
in this post but rather the assumptions that the clinics are using for their
argument.
It is an assumption that all donors who donated under
anonymity conditions wish to remain anonymous. Sure some will do but others won’t.
A serious problem here is that the donors had NO option when they donated. They
were not given the option of ticking a box that said anonymous or willing to be
known. Anonymity was mandatory and after speaking to several donors who did
donate at the time, quite a few of those have said that they would have been
willing to be identifiable if they were given that option. But they simply were
not allowed to do so. Currently they are still not being given the freedom to
choose as they are not being asked at an individual level whether they wish to
remain anonymous or become identifiable.
They also assume that donors do not change their minds over
time. Research by renowned donor conception researcher Daniels et al show that
many past donors do in fact address their thoughts and emotion in regard to
their donation over the course of their lifetimes. Some of them do in fact
become more open to the exchange of information when they originally wanted
anonymity (certainly not all, but some do).
Additionally they assume that past anonymous donors do not
want contact with their offspring. The longest running voluntary register in
Australia (Victoria) has more donors on its lists than it does donor offspring.
Which I think speaks volumes in itself. This shows that the proportion of past
anonymous donors that wish to remain anonymous is not as large as the clinics
would lead us to believe.
We are being constantly bombarded by clinics speaking on
behalf of donors when they in fact have not canvased the views of those donors.
They are making claims based on assumptions without actually speaking to the
people they are advocating on the behalf of. Which pretty much is a fail of Advocacy101.
Now what is that phrase about the word ASSUME again? (rhetorical
question)
Tuesday, April 23, 2013
Donor Conception – Reconstruction Phase Theory
The following is a blatant rip-off of the Adoption Reconstruction Phase Theory as put forth by J Penny, LD Borders and F Portnoy in their article “Reconstruction of adoption issues: delineation of five phasesamong adult adoptees” which appeared in the Journal of Counselling and Development, 2007. I happened across this theory due to my good friend at the Declassified Adoptee who had posted the list. There was a lot that resonated in there for me if I simply substituted some words like adoptee for those that are relevant to the donor conception community. I don’t think that everyone would fit with all components in each stage (I certainly didn't), however, I think that the underlying theme would certainly be prevalent.
1. No Awareness/Denying Awareness (Ignorance Is Bliss): The donor
conceived has a sense of obligation and gratitude toward the raising parents.
There is no overt acknowledgment of donor conception issues. Donor conception
is considered a positive influence on the donor conceived's life.
2. Emerging Awareness (Curiosity Killed the Cat): The donor
conceived views donor conception as a positive influence on his or her life and
also recognizes some donor conception issues (e.g., has curiosity about genetic
family, yearns for closeness, experiences a void, has a sense of not belonging)
but is hesitant to explore these issues.
3. Drowning in Awareness (Mad as Hell): The donor conceived
has feelings of anger, resentment, and sadness about the conception. The donor
conceived is focused on losses in donor conception, as well as anger toward the
raising parents, donor, and/or the fertility treatment system.
4. Reemerging From Awareness (Rising From the Ashes): The donor
conceived recognizes the losses in donor conception and problems with the fertility
treatment system but also recognizes the gains from donor conception. The donor
conceived is attempting to bring acceptance and integration to donor conception
issues.
5. Finding Peace (Let It Be): The donor conceived has worked
through donor conception issues and feels at peace about donor conception or is
moving toward peace.
I am not sure exactly what is meant in stage 5 by the authors
– I’ll have to go and read their paper to find out, but I don’t know that it
necessarily means that a person is completely ok with adoption or donor
conception just that they have moved on and stopped allowing it to negatively
impact on themselves as occurs in some of the earlier stages. So if it was me I
would probably reword the last stage a little more than just substituting words
as I have done.
But here is the question: If you work through all of these
stages and you can acknowledge the losses that occur, should you just let it be
as is suggested in stage 5? Or should you try and do something about it through
advocacy or education or whatever, not necessarily for yourself but to help
other adoptees or donor conceived people so that they don’t have to suffer as
great a loss as you did? For me personally that would give me greater peace
than just ‘letting it be’.
Saturday, March 16, 2013
Daughter and Father Unite
Newspaper article of my dear friend Rel meeting her father:
http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/suddenly-shes-there-daughter-and-donor-dad-united-20130316-2g7mv.html
'Suddenly she's there': daughter and donor dad united
A few months before his shock resignation as premier, Mr Baillieu quietly asked the public records office to release information that could assist Ms Grech find the sperm donor who helped create her.
It was a journey that began 15 years ago, when Ms Grech's parents told her she had been conceived through a donation at the now defunct Prince Henry's Hospital. Since then, the 30-year-old social worker has exhausted every avenue trying to find the man known only by his donor code: T5.
''I'd come to a place of acceptance that I'd never meet him,'' she said last week.
''I was sitting there reading this letter, crying and laughing at the same time. I just couldn't believe this man actually existed; that he's not just some fictional character that I've imagined,'' she said.
It's not every day a premier secretly steps in to help a donor-conceived child find out where they came from. Access to such information is somewhat restricted under Victorian law. But then again, this was no ordinary case. Ms Grech was diagnosed with stage four bowel cancer two years ago. She's been in and out of hospital ever since, but the situation is terminal.
Mr Baillieu learnt of her story through a parliamentary review, chaired by one of his colleagues, Clem Newton-Brown, which questioned whether Victorians should have access to identifying information about their sperm donors.
Upon learning her donor had been found, Ms Grech sought permission to send him a letter. But Mr Tonna went even further, telling authorities they should pass on his email and phone number. Their first phone call lasted three hours.
''It was amazing,'' she says. ''There was an instant connection - how could there not be?''
Now, one month later, Ms Grech and Mr Tonna are sitting on a couch at a house in Brunswick West, as though they have known each other their whole lives. He holds her hand gently as she rests her sore back against a cushion - she only recently returned from another stint in hospital - and he chokes back tears as he speaks of their first meeting.
''It's like this psychic switch went off in my heart, my mind, my soul. I hadn't seen her for 30 years; I wasn't even aware of her, and suddenly she's there. I just love her so much,'' Mr Tonna says.
Theirs was a happy family reunion. She has met his wife and son, who now refers to her as his ''big sister''. He has met her parents, too, who have thanked him for the part he played in creating their daughter.
Both are creative - they write, sing, play guitar and enjoy poetry - and there are also some physical similarities. ''Our calves,'' says Ms Grech, laughing. ''We've both got really chunky calves.''
Ms Grech knows she is one of the lucky ones, because many donor-conceived children are still kept in the dark when it comes to their parental heritage.
Victoria has a three-tiered system where access to information depends on the date of your conception.
Children conceived after 1998 can get information about their biological parent because their donors were required to consent to it being released. Those conceived between 1988 and 1997 also have the right to identifying information, provided the donor agrees. But those conceived before 1988, as Ms Grech was, don't have the same rights because the donations were made on the condition of anonymity. Their only option is to put themselves on a voluntary register and hope their donor does the same.
State Parliament's law reform committee last year recommended changing the law, urging the government to give all people the right to identifying information about their donor.
The government is yet to respond to the committee's report, but has sought more information - particularly from sperm donors - through another inquiry by the Victorian Assisted Reproductive Treatment Authority. It is understood Labor is also considering legislation in the form of a private member's bill.
The committee's recommendations are controversial: critics argue it could jeopardise patient confidentiality, breach privacy, or even deter people from donating. But Ms Grech and Mr Tonna say their story is evidence that such fears are unnecessary.
Asked if the law should change, Mr Tonna is adamant: "Absolutely. This is a basic human right. For any politician to stand there and deny it is abhorrent.'' Ms Grech agrees. She is grateful for the help she received in finding Mr Tonna, and all the more grateful that it worked out so well. She only wishes she had found him sooner. ''The thing that strikes me the most is that Ray expressed to me that, had he been given the opportunity to meet me 15 years ago, he would have been just as eager then as he is now.
''Of course, I'm appreciative that I can know him now, but to think we could have had another 15 years of getting to know each other is so bitter sweet.''
Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/suddenly-shes-there-daughter-and-donor-dad-united-20130316-2g7mv.html#ixzz2NkIeWP3C
http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/suddenly-shes-there-daughter-and-donor-dad-united-20130316-2g7mv.html
'Suddenly she's there': daughter and donor dad united
by Farrah Tomazin
Narelle Grech has found her sperm-donor father, Ray Tonna, after a 15-year search. Photo: Meredith O'Shea
Narelle Grech spent half her life searching in vain for her
biological father. By the end of last year, as cancer took hold, she had
all but given up hope. And then Ted Baillieu intervened.A few months before his shock resignation as premier, Mr Baillieu quietly asked the public records office to release information that could assist Ms Grech find the sperm donor who helped create her.
It was a journey that began 15 years ago, when Ms Grech's parents told her she had been conceived through a donation at the now defunct Prince Henry's Hospital. Since then, the 30-year-old social worker has exhausted every avenue trying to find the man known only by his donor code: T5.
''I'd come to a place of acceptance that I'd never meet him,'' she said last week.
Advertisement
And then everything changed. On February 11, Ms Grech
received a letter from Attorney-General Robert Clark's office. It
informed her that the registry of Births, Deaths, and Marriages had
found her donor, a man by the name of Ray Tonna, who was living in
regional Victoria. She was stunned.''I was sitting there reading this letter, crying and laughing at the same time. I just couldn't believe this man actually existed; that he's not just some fictional character that I've imagined,'' she said.
It's not every day a premier secretly steps in to help a donor-conceived child find out where they came from. Access to such information is somewhat restricted under Victorian law. But then again, this was no ordinary case. Ms Grech was diagnosed with stage four bowel cancer two years ago. She's been in and out of hospital ever since, but the situation is terminal.
Mr Baillieu learnt of her story through a parliamentary review, chaired by one of his colleagues, Clem Newton-Brown, which questioned whether Victorians should have access to identifying information about their sperm donors.
Upon learning her donor had been found, Ms Grech sought permission to send him a letter. But Mr Tonna went even further, telling authorities they should pass on his email and phone number. Their first phone call lasted three hours.
''It was amazing,'' she says. ''There was an instant connection - how could there not be?''
Now, one month later, Ms Grech and Mr Tonna are sitting on a couch at a house in Brunswick West, as though they have known each other their whole lives. He holds her hand gently as she rests her sore back against a cushion - she only recently returned from another stint in hospital - and he chokes back tears as he speaks of their first meeting.
''It's like this psychic switch went off in my heart, my mind, my soul. I hadn't seen her for 30 years; I wasn't even aware of her, and suddenly she's there. I just love her so much,'' Mr Tonna says.
Theirs was a happy family reunion. She has met his wife and son, who now refers to her as his ''big sister''. He has met her parents, too, who have thanked him for the part he played in creating their daughter.
Both are creative - they write, sing, play guitar and enjoy poetry - and there are also some physical similarities. ''Our calves,'' says Ms Grech, laughing. ''We've both got really chunky calves.''
Ms Grech knows she is one of the lucky ones, because many donor-conceived children are still kept in the dark when it comes to their parental heritage.
Victoria has a three-tiered system where access to information depends on the date of your conception.
Children conceived after 1998 can get information about their biological parent because their donors were required to consent to it being released. Those conceived between 1988 and 1997 also have the right to identifying information, provided the donor agrees. But those conceived before 1988, as Ms Grech was, don't have the same rights because the donations were made on the condition of anonymity. Their only option is to put themselves on a voluntary register and hope their donor does the same.
State Parliament's law reform committee last year recommended changing the law, urging the government to give all people the right to identifying information about their donor.
The government is yet to respond to the committee's report, but has sought more information - particularly from sperm donors - through another inquiry by the Victorian Assisted Reproductive Treatment Authority. It is understood Labor is also considering legislation in the form of a private member's bill.
The committee's recommendations are controversial: critics argue it could jeopardise patient confidentiality, breach privacy, or even deter people from donating. But Ms Grech and Mr Tonna say their story is evidence that such fears are unnecessary.
Asked if the law should change, Mr Tonna is adamant: "Absolutely. This is a basic human right. For any politician to stand there and deny it is abhorrent.'' Ms Grech agrees. She is grateful for the help she received in finding Mr Tonna, and all the more grateful that it worked out so well. She only wishes she had found him sooner. ''The thing that strikes me the most is that Ray expressed to me that, had he been given the opportunity to meet me 15 years ago, he would have been just as eager then as he is now.
''Of course, I'm appreciative that I can know him now, but to think we could have had another 15 years of getting to know each other is so bitter sweet.''
Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/suddenly-shes-there-daughter-and-donor-dad-united-20130316-2g7mv.html#ixzz2NkIeWP3C
Thursday, March 14, 2013
Walking a Mile in Someone Else's Shoes
Great post from a lady trying to make sense of what it would be like attempting to make familial connections using DNA technology just as donor conceived people do. While it can equally apply to other poeple's scenarios and is no different to the testing and analysis the general population would go through undertaking genetic genealogy, looking at it through the eyes of someone else, in this case a donor conceived person, changes things greatly. We should always try and look at other perspectives.
http://www.newfeminism.co/2013/03/searching-for-family/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=searching-for-family
http://www.newfeminism.co/2013/03/searching-for-family/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=searching-for-family
Saturday, January 19, 2013
"My" Perceived Similarities to Adoption
I was asked by my good friend Amanda who is an adoptee to write a guest blog post on her amazing adoption blog. The gist was to give her readership who would be mainly adoptees or those interested in adoption some insight into how adoption and donor conception have some similarities.
It is certainly not an exhaustive or extensive comparison but rather an introduction to the links between the two.
http://www.declassifiedadoptee.com/2013/01/what-do-you-mean-half-adopted.html
It is certainly not an exhaustive or extensive comparison but rather an introduction to the links between the two.
http://www.declassifiedadoptee.com/2013/01/what-do-you-mean-half-adopted.html
Monday, January 07, 2013
Me and 23andMe: Healthy Genetic Genealogy
I’ve discussed previously some genetic genealogy that I had
done with FamilyTreeDNA, this time I did a test with the company 23andMe. Not
only do they do matches with relatives based on over 1million markers but also
test for some health traits that may lie within your genes.
In regard to the relative finder test, I didn’t receive any
close matches and I actually have far fewer matches with 23andMe than I do with
FamilyTreeDNA. So no luck tracing my paternal family there.
What was interesting was the ancestral regions from which my
DNA supposedly belongs. It showed 99.5% European DNA with 0.5% unspecified.
Given my physical appearance it is hardly surprising although I was surprised
that no other ethnicities had even a small imprint on my DNA. Europe was further
broken down with the majority belonging to Northern European and of that the regions
that had the greatest bearing on my DNA was German, British Isles and France.
With my known maternal ancestry this certainly fits, so it is nice to see some
accuracy in that respect.
The health analysis is what really drew me to the 23andMe
test. While it must be stated that they typically report increased or decreased
risk ratios, which do not mean one or the other that you will or won’t get
something, it is nice to know some of these in case preventative lifestyle
measures can be undertaken to improve your prospects. While I am certainly not
going to go into much detail as it really isn’t anybody else’s business, I was
quite happy with my results. There was nothing outstanding for me to worry
about, in fact it was rather reassuring. Although it doesn’t mean that I will
be carefree in my approach to life. All of the factors that I had an increased
risk of were well under 2 fold increased risk and therefore not of enormous
concern. Some of these I already knew would potentially be on the cards due to
other conventional health tests that I have undertaken, so once again a certain
degree of accuracy. There were some with decreased risk ratios such as type-2
diabetes. However given that my maternal family has a history of it, and
perhaps my paternal side negated that increased risk, I won’t be taking that as
a passport to sugar oblivion. I still think I need to be careful. Part of the
tests showed that I wasn’t the carrier of many genes associated with certain
diseases so it is fantastic to know that I haven’t unwittingly passed something
on to my own children. Some of the less scientifically validated linkage
analysis, things I would consider fun factorials are good for a bit of a giggle
such as I should be able to metabolise caffeine quicker than the average
person, although I would say the suggestion that I should be a sprinter would
be incorrect.
All in all the relative finder result was disappointing but
that is through no fault of 23andMe, I just need people who are closely related
to me to take the test. The historical linkage to places of origin even though
they can be thousands and thousands of years ago, is nice for someone who only
knows where half of my family comes from. This at least gives me some sense of
where I am originally descended from. And the health analysis, while it cannot
be classed as definitive, was great seeing as though I am missing half of a
health history and it allows me to be proactive in lifestyle choices.
Thumbs up.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)