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)
