The Kretchmars of Yukon, Oklahoma, were devastated to find out that their baby boy--who was artificially inseminated nine months ago--had cystic fibrosis, a crippling disease that leads to massive scarring of the pancreas and a premature death. The Kretchmars later learned that the sperm they selected had been frozen for decades at a laboratory. Hundreds of other cases of children fathered by sperm donors have inherited genetic conditions ranging from spinal muscular atrophy to heart defects from fathers they will never meet.
Several decades ago, issues such as these were uncommon enough to slip beneath the radar. However, over a million children children are estimated to be born each year through donated sperm of eggs, making this issue very relevant to today's society. However--as evident in the case above--regulation of said donations leaves much to be desired.
While donated eggs can still pose genetic risks to whatever children arise as a result, donated sperm is the critical fear. One egg can only produce one child, whereas one donation of sperm can result in over a hundred potential children suffering from or carrying genetic defects. Thus, while donors have the same rate of genetic mutations as does the general population, the sheer magnitude of their possible progeny invalidates that argument against increased regulation in sperm banks. The Food and Drug Administration currently requires that all men who choose to donate sperm must be tested for communicable (infectious) diseases, but has no requirements for genetic diseases. Some upper-level sperm banks encourage genetic testing, but does not make it mandatory.
Nevertheless, the fertility industry is not in favor of such new, mandatory regulations. Proponents of keeping the status quo cite the inherent risks in human reproduction, claiming that even with the excessive costs of testing for genetic defects, there will still be risks in children begot by donated eggs or sperm.
So, hitchhikers, what is your stance on the current regulation of the sperm and egg donor marketplace? Remember that it is still a marketplace, and thus companies will be truly adverse to expensive, forced genetic testing. However, do you feel that the benefits of mandating genetic testing in donated eggs and sperm will outweigh the costs to the companies? Do you feel one sperm donor should have a cap on the amount of children he can foster with his sperm?
4 comments:
I definitely read a story recently of a man who had donated sperm meeting his many decendents who had tracked him down through the sperm bank. I think that sperm donation does need to subject to extreme government regulation because this process plays a direct role in the human population and the health care that will be available to the general public. Although one million artifically inseminated children is a small fraction of the people born into the United States each year, the high rate of genetic mutation among these children is a not a parallel to the rate of genetic mutation amongst the general population. It would not be fair to the parents of these children or the rest of the public to pay for the errors and laziness of sperm bank businesses.
I certainly agree with Alice on the stance that sperm banks should clean up the own mess they create – meaning that they should handle the donated sperm with care and delicacy, and the fact that genetic mutations might have come about through the carelessness of sperm banks themselves is preposterous. However, I hesitate to support severe regulation of the sperm and egg donor marketplace. After all, by the simple odds of the genetic pool, children born by donated sperm or egg are no more prone to genetic mutations or diseases than naturally conceived children (minus the possible sloppy treatment by sperm banks). I think the FDA is correct in requiring sperm donors to by tested for communicable diseases, to reduce the risk of child conception, but testing for genetic disorders might be wholly unnecessary and extremely expensive to implement. What might be a good idea, however, is to adopt the anonymity policy that many other countries have accepted, which is to require all sperm (and egg donors) to reveal their identity in order to throw their reproductive card into the sperm bank, thus banning anonymous donation. This method would screen out any extremely obvious cases of genetic disorder (or other disorders, for that matter). The truth of the situation is that testing for genetic disorders would result in some sort of inherent affiliation for disorder in every single candidate, and the odds of their progeny expressing such phenotypes are entirely unpredictable. Thus, I do not support testing for genetic disorders (at least until further evidence is gathered), although I do support banning anonymous donation.
The total misuse of unfounded, unattributed information in both the New York Times article, and what has been further propogated here is more dangerous than the genetic disease risks being spoken of.
The author of the New York Times article gave no attribution or cited any sources about the validity of her statements, but chose a shock/fear tactic by throwing out a large number and confusing the uninformed.
The truth is that no one really knows how many donor sperm children are born every year, and that the best estimate puts the total number around 30,000/year; nowhere even close to 1,000,000.
The second thing I will bring up, is that most sperm and egg banks are testing for the more common genetic diseases; e.g. Cystic Fibrosis, SMA, Karyotype, etc... This testing actually reduces the risk of passing along mutations for these diseases, even if in a larger offspring pool.
I am very glad to see that high school students are taking these kinds of issues seriously, and putting forth mature thought about the world they will be engaging in. I encourage you, as you continue to explore the ethics of this world, that you take nothing at face value and pursue due diligence before stating your opinions; espcially in such a public forum.
I think dealing with donated gametes is a tricky spot. Yes, fertility services are an industry. However, it cannot be forgotten that they are dealing with human lives. Is it alright to remove a sample just because there is a possibility that the child may obtain a genetic disease? And on the other hand, do donor families have the right to a healthy child? Completely removing a sample because it may contain a gamete with a genetic disease sounds a little bit too much like eugenics to me. When will it end? Later, will it be that these clinics remove samples because the child may be prone to obesity or may need braces or have other traits that are less desirable but certainly not fatal traits? Conceiving a child, no matter what the circumstances, is a gamble. I do not think that fertility clinics should test for genetic disorders.
Post a Comment