Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-nmvwc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-19T14:30:12.553Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 12 - Knowing Origins

from Part III - Institutionalised Resistance to Openness

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 July 2023

By
Naomi Cahn
Edited by
Fiona Kelly ,
Deborah Dempsey  and
Adrienne Byrt
Fiona Kelly
Affiliation:
La Trobe University, Victoria
Deborah Dempsey
Affiliation:
Swinburne University of Technology, Victoria
Adrienne Byrt
Affiliation:
Swinburne University of Technology, Victoria
Get access

Summary

This chapter traces the development of donor-conception regulation in the United States. It shows the evolution of laws concerning anonymity, addressing how the legal and pragmatic contexts for nondisclosure are changing, and it also points out that the feasibility of promising anonymity to donors is no longer viable. As sperm and egg banks increasingly offer the possibility of identity release donors, as genetic testing becomes more widespread, as donor-conceived people strengthen their advocacy, and as other countries end anonymity, new legal approaches are developing in the United States. The law is beginning to respond to the interests of donor-conceived people. The questions moving forward thus become how best to counsel donors, the intending parent(s), and donor-conceived offspring about their options, and how best to respond to emerging reproductive technologies.

Keywords

donor identity disclosureUnited Statesgametesanonymity
Type
Chapter
Information
Donor-Linked Families in the Digital Age
Relatedness and Regulation
 , pp. 211 - 228
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2023

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

11 Siblings Met in Orlando. (2017, January 21). The donor sibling registry. https://donorsiblingregistry.com/success_stories/253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21 CFR § 1271 (2021)Google Scholar
Adams, D. H., Ullah, S., & de Lacey, S. (2016). Does the removal of anonymity reduce sperm donors in Australia? Journal of Law and Medicine, 23(3), 628–636.Google Scholar
Allan, S. (2016). Donor identification: Victorian legislation gives rights to all donor-conceived people. Family Matters, 98, 43–55. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3010387Google Scholar
Appleton, S. F. (2015). Between the binaries: Exploring the legal boundaries of nonanonymous sperm donation. Family Law Quarterly, 49(1), 93–115. www.jstor.org/stable/24577604" www.jstor.org/stable/24577604Google Scholar
BioNews comment articles written by Wendy Kramer. (n.d.). BioNews. Retrieved June 29, 2021, from www.bionews.org.uk/page_5695” www.bionews.org.uk/page_5695Google Scholar
Bobbie Jo R. v. Traci W., No. 11–1753, 2013 WL 2462173 (W. Va. June 7, 2013)Google Scholar
Borry, P., Rusu, O., & Howard, H. (2013). Genetic testing: Anonymity of sperm donors under threat. Nature, 469, 169. https://doi.org/10.1038/496169eCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cahn, N. R. (2009). Necessary subjects: The need for a mandatory national donor gamete databank. DePaul Journal of Health Care Law, 12, 203–228.Google Scholar
Cahn, N. R. (2012). The new kinship. Georgetown Law Journal, 100(2), 367–429. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2018969Google Scholar
Cahn, N. R. (2014a). Do tell! The rights of donor-conceived offspring. Hofstra Law Review, 42(4), 1077–1124. https://scholarlycommons.law.hofstra.edu/hlr/vol42/iss4/3Google Scholar
Cahn, N. R. (2014b). The uncertain legal basis for the new kinship. Journal of Family Issues, 36(4), 501–518. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X14563797Google Scholar
Cahn, N. R. (2017). What’s right about knowing? Journal of Law & Biosciences, 4, 377–83. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3011639Google Scholar
Cahn, N. R. (2018). The new “art” of family: Connecting assisted reproductive technologies & identity rights. University of Illinois Law Review, 2018, 1443–1471.Google Scholar
Cahn, N. R. (2020). Crispr parents and informed consent. Southern Methodist University Science and Technology Law Review, 23(1), 3–30. https://scholar.smu.edu/scitech/vol23/iss1/2Google Scholar
Cahn, N. & Suter, S. (2022a). The art of regulating ART. Chicago-Kent Law Review (96), 29–86.Google Scholar
Cahn, N. & Suter, S. (2022b). Generations later, the rights of donor-conceived people are becoming law. The Hill, https://thehill.com/opinion/healthcare/3460149-generations-later-the-rights-of-donor-conceived-people-are-becoming-law/?rl=1Google Scholar
California Cryobank. (n.d.). Donor types. www.cryobank.com/how-it-works/donor-types/Google Scholar
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2021, April 20). ART Success Rates. www.cdc.gov/art/artdata/index.htmlGoogle Scholar
Cohen, I. G., Coan, T., Ottey, M., & Boyd, C. (2016). Sperm donor anonymity and compensation: An experiment with American sperm donors. Journal of Law & the Biosciences, 3(3), 468–488. https://doi.org/10.1093/jlb/lsw052CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Copeland, L. (2017, July 27). Who was she? A DNA test only opened new mysteries. Washington Post. www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/lifestyle/she-thought-she-was-irish-until-a-dna-test-opened-a-100-year-old-mystery/Google Scholar
Crawshaw, M. (2017). Direct-to-consumer DNA testing: The fallout for individuals and their families unexpectedly learning of their donor conception origins. Human Fertility, 21(4), 225–228. https://doi.org/10.1080/14647273.2017.1339127CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cryos. (n.d.). ID release or non-ID release sperm donor? www.cryosinternational.com/en-us/us-shop/become-a-donor/become-a-sperm-donor/how-to-become-a-sperm-donor/id-release-or-non-id-release-sperm-donor/Google Scholar
Davies, S. (2020). Queering America’s heteronormative family law through “well-conceived” legislation (or, genetic parents exist and sometimes your kid might want to know them). American Journal of Law & Medicine, 46(1), 89–110. https://doi.org/10.1177/0098858820919554Google Scholar
Declaration in Support of a Motion for a Preliminary Injunction (2019) Teuscher v. CCB-NWB, Att. A. para.VIII, E. Wash., No. 19-CV-00204.Google Scholar
Doe v. XYZ Co., 914 N.E.2d 117 (Mass. App. Ct. 2009)Google Scholar
Doe 1 v. Xytex Corp., No. 1:16-CV-1453-TWT, 2017 WL 1036484 (N.D. Ga. Mar. 17, 2017).Google Scholar
Donor Sibling Registry. (n.d.). https://donorsiblingregistry.com/Google Scholar
Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, 542 US 1 (2004)Google Scholar
Elston, S. W. (2020). Swipe right for daddy: Modern marketing of sperm and the need for honesty and transparency in advertising. Journal of Health & Life Sciences Law, 13, 28–56.Google Scholar
Entrikin, J. L. (2020). Family secrets and relational privacy: Protecting not-so-personal, sensitive information from public disclosure. University of Miami Law Review, 74(3), 781–897. https://repository.law.miami.edu/umlr/vol74/iss3/5Google Scholar
Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. (2009). Interests, obligations, and rights of the donor in gamete donation. Fertility and Sterility, 91(1), 22–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2008.09.062Google Scholar
Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. (2013). Informing offspring of their conception by gamete or embryo donation: A committee opinion. Fertility and Sterility, 100(1), 45–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2013.02.028CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. (2014). Interests, obligations, and rights in gamete donation: a committee opinion. Fertility and Sterility, 102(3), 675–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2014.06.001Google Scholar
Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. (2018). Informing offspring of their conception by gamete or embryo donation: An Ethics Committee opinion. Fertility and Sterility, 109(4), 601–605. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2018.01.001Google Scholar
Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. (2019). Interests, obligations, and rights in gamete and embryo donation: An Ethics Committee opinion. Fertility and Sterility, 111(4), 664–670. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2019.01.018Google Scholar
Food and Drug Administration. (2019, May 3). Testing donors of human cells, tissues, and cellular and tissue-based products (HCT/P): Specific requirements. www.fda.gov/vaccines-blood-biologics/safety-availability-biologics/testing-donors-human-cells-tissues-and-cellular-and-tissue-based-products-hctp-specific-requirementsGoogle Scholar
Gan-Or, N. Y. (2020). Reproductive dreams and nightmares: Sperm donation in the age of at-home genetic testing. Loyola University Chicago Law Journal, 51(3), 791–833. https://lawecommons.luc.edu/luclj/vol51/iss3/5Google Scholar
Glazer, E. (2019, July 23). DNA testing forever changed donor conception. Harvard Health publishing. www.health.harvard.edu/blog/dna-testing-forever-changed-donor-conception-2019072317394Google Scholar
Harper, J. C., Kennett, D., & Reisel, D. (2016). The end of donor anonymity: How genetic testing is likely to drive anonymous gamete donation out of business. Human Reproduction, 31(6), 1135–1140. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dew065Google Scholar
Hasday, J. E. (2012). Siblings in law. Vanderbilt Law Review, 65(3), 897–931. https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/vlr/vol65/iss3/4Google Scholar
Ishii, T., & de Miguel Beriain, I. (2022). Shifting to a model of donor conception that entails a communication agreement among the parents, donor, and offspring. BMC Medical Ethics, 23(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-022-00756-1Google Scholar
Johnson v. Superior Court, 95 Cal. Rptr. 2d 864 (Cal. App. 2d Dist. 2000).Google Scholar
Johnston, L. (2016, July 3). Sperm donors fear “hi dad” showdown as DNA testing becomes more accessible. Express. www.express.co.uk/life-style/health/685599/Sperm-donors-DNA-testing-biological-father-offspring-anonymityGoogle Scholar
Jones, B. (1993). Do siblings possess constitutional rights? Cornell Law Review, 78(6), 1187–1220. http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/clr/vol78/iss6/4Google Scholar
Joslin, C. G. (2018). Preface to the UPA (2017). Family Law Quarterly, 52, 437–69.Google Scholar
Kramer, W., & Cahn, N. R. (2013). Finding Our Families: A First-of-Its-Kind Book for Donor-Conceived People and Their Families. Avery Publishing Group.Google Scholar
Mandelbaum, R. (2011). Delicate balances: Assessing the needs and rights of siblings in foster care to maintain their relationships post-adoption. New Mexico Law Review, 41(1), 1–67. https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/nmlr/vol41/iss1/3Google Scholar
Mendoza, B., & Diallo, A. (2020, October 26). The best DNA testing kit. Wirecutter. www.nytimes.com/wirecutter/reviews/best-dna-test/Google Scholar
Mroz, J. (2019, February 16). A mother learns the identity of her child’s grandmother. A sperm bank threatens to sue. NY Times. www.nytimes.com/2019/02/16/health/sperm-donation-dna-testing.htmlGoogle Scholar
Nejaime, D. (2017). The family’s constitution. Constitutional Commentary, 32, 413–448. https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/concomm/280Google Scholar
Perry-Rogers v. Fasano, 715 N.Y.S.2d 19 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dept. 2000)Google Scholar
Post, D. J., McCarthy, S., Sherman, R., & Bayimli, S. (2015). Are you still my family? Post-adoption sibling visitation. Capital University Law Review, 43(2), 307–372.Google Scholar
Reproductive Medicine Associates of Connecticut. (n.d.). Anonymous Egg Donation. www.rmact.com/anonymous-egg-donationGoogle Scholar
Resolve. (n.d.). Infertility coverage by state. https://resolve.org/what-are-my-options/insurance-coverage/infertility-coverage-state/Google Scholar
Rhode Island Title 15, Chapter 8.1, Sections 901 et seq. (2021)Google Scholar
Russell v. Pasik, 178 So. 3d 55 (Fla. 2d Dist. App. 2015)Google Scholar
Samuels, E. J. (2018). An immodest proposal for birth registration in donor-assisted reproduction, in the interest of science and human rights. New Mexico Law Review, 48(3), 416–451. https://scholarworks.law.ubalt.edu/fac_articles/5Google Scholar
S.B. 6037, 2017–2018 Regular Session (Wash. 2017).Google Scholar
Scharf, R. L. (2015). Separated at adoption: Addressing the challenges of maintaining sibling-of-origin bonds in post-adoption families. UC Davis Journal of Juvenile Law & Policy, 19(1), 84–125. https://scholars.law.unlv.edu/facpub/928Google Scholar
Seattle Sperm Bank. (n.d.). SSB connects. www.seattlespermbank.com/services/ssb-connects/Google Scholar
Sperm Bank of California, The. (n.d.). Identity release program. www.thespermbankofca.org/content/identity-release-programGoogle Scholar
Trachman, E. (2019, February 6). Beware of the home DNA kit! You may find yourself being sued by a sperm bank. Above the Law. https://abovethelaw.com/2019/02/beware-of-the-home-dna-kit-you-may-find-yourself-being-sued-by-a-sperm-bank/Google Scholar
Trachman, E. (2022a). Colorado is poised to pass a groundbreaking Donor-Conceived Person Protection Act. Above the Law. https://abovethelaw.com/2022/05/colorado-is-poised-to-pass-a-groundbreaking-donor-conceived-person-protection-actGoogle Scholar
Trachman, E. (2022b). New York proposes Donor-Conceived Person Protection Act. Above the Law. https://abovethelaw.com/2022/01/new-york-proposes-donor-conceived-person-protection-act/Google Scholar
Troxel v. Granville, 530 US 57 (2000)Google Scholar
Uniform Law Commission. (n.d.). Parentage Act. www.uniformlaws.org/committees/community-home?CommunityKey=c4f37d2d-4d20-4be0-8256-22dd73af068fGoogle Scholar
Uniform Parentage Act § 9 (2017a)Google Scholar
Uniform Parentage Act § 102(3) (2017b)Google Scholar
Uniform Parentage Act § 502(b)(2) (2017c)Google Scholar
Uniform Parentage Act § 904 cmt (2017d)Google Scholar
Uniform Parentage Act § 905(b) (2017e)Google Scholar
US Donor Conceived Council. (2022). 2022 Survey of U.S. sperm banks. www.usdcc.org/2022/04/19/2022-survey-of-us-sperm-banks/Google Scholar
VARTA. (2021). 2021 Annual Report. www.varta.org.au/sites/default/files/2021-12/varta-annual-report-2021.pdfGoogle Scholar
Wash. Rev. Code § 26.26.750 (2017)Google Scholar
Wash. Rev. Code § 26.26A.815 (2019)Google Scholar
Wilson, R. F. (2003). Uncovering the rationale for requiring infertility in surrogacy arrangements. American Journal of Law & Medicine, 29(2–3), 337–362.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zadeh, S., Ilioi, E.g., Jadva, V., & Golombok, S. (2018). The perspectives of adolescents conceived using surrogacy, egg or sperm donation, Human Reproduction, 33(6), 1099–1106, https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dey088CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

  • Knowing Origins
  • Edited by Fiona Kelly, La Trobe University, Victoria, Deborah Dempsey, Swinburne University of Technology, Victoria, Adrienne Byrt, Swinburne University of Technology, Victoria
  • Book: Donor-Linked Families in the Digital Age
  • Online publication: 13 July 2023
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009008129.016
Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

  • Knowing Origins
  • Edited by Fiona Kelly, La Trobe University, Victoria, Deborah Dempsey, Swinburne University of Technology, Victoria, Adrienne Byrt, Swinburne University of Technology, Victoria
  • Book: Donor-Linked Families in the Digital Age
  • Online publication: 13 July 2023
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009008129.016
Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

  • Knowing Origins
  • Edited by Fiona Kelly, La Trobe University, Victoria, Deborah Dempsey, Swinburne University of Technology, Victoria, Adrienne Byrt, Swinburne University of Technology, Victoria
  • Book: Donor-Linked Families in the Digital Age
  • Online publication: 13 July 2023
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009008129.016
Available formats
×