Science and Technology Committee

These are the main points raised in the first week of the forum:

- Similarity between adopted children and IVF children asserted and disputed. If government withholding information causes anxiety, then that information should not be stored. Loss of anonymity “would greatly reduce the number of people prepared to donate sperm”, for many reasons, including donors’ possibly “hugely” changed circumstances, years later. Retroactive changes to the law would be “grossly unfair”; one softer change suggested was that anonymous donations could be encouraged, “not prohibiting current practice altogether”. The result of recent decision will be anonymity for those who can afford it, with children not knowing “whether they are products of this treatment or not.”

- Both partners’ consent should be required for implantation, so either “irrevocable” consent should be given at the time of the IVF, “or there should be a shift towards storing gametes, rather than embryos”. Although storage of human eggs is neither fully tested nor accepted yet, the law is about right: “formed by mutual consent”, embryos “should only be used with mutual consent”.

- Against the view “that the sperm was obtained without consent under false pretences”, is a double IF – if “the woman feels she can raise the child and it was clear that the man wished to become a father then she should be allowed to use the sperm.”

If you have views on these or any other issues relating to Consent and Confidentiality please post your message in this forum.

We look forward to your contributions.

Many thanks,
Milica
e-Moderators team