The issue is whether the donor of sperm obtained via a sperm bank should be identified even though the donor provided the specimen with the understanding of anonymity?
The following are stories of how through current public accessibility to DNA identification resources anonymity of the “father” is no longer guaranteed. There is an example of this accessibility in a 2010 issue of Slate and a more current example as presented in the Netherland’s Dutch News.
Providing sperm to a sperm bank is of monetary significance to both the donor and finally for the bank itself and the “donation” is still considered a needed action by society. Despite the potential with public-accessible technology and investigations as noted in the two above articles, should the utilization of the sperm for fertilization continue to permit anonymity of the source? Well, if the goal is to encourage further donations then a recent study in the journal “Law and the Biosciences” regarding loss of anonymity suggest a problem in procurement as outlined in the Abstract of the article.
Most sperm donation that occurs in the USA proceeds through anonymous donation. While some clinics make the identity of the sperm donor available to a donor-conceived child at age 18 as part of ‘open identification’ or ‘identity release programs,’ no US law requires clinics to do so, and the majority of individuals do not use these programs. By contrast, in many parts of the world, there have been significant legislative initiatives requiring that sperm donor identities be made available to children after a certain age (typically when the child turns 18).
The views, opinions and positions expressed by these authors and blogs are theirs and do not necessarily represent that of the Bioethics Research Library and Kennedy Institute of Ethics or Georgetown University.