Overall, participants in the stakeholder workshops felt that 'normalising all paths to parenthood, this is what needs changing'. There was also discussion in the workshops about changing the birth certification rules to make the fact of donor conception discoverable, with some donor-conceived participants suggesting that 'maintaining "secrecy" perpetuates the "shame" element' and that 'secrecy poisons relationships'. However, interview participants expressed more varied opinions about whether donor anonymity needed to be removed completely (or even at all). The general view among workshop attendees was that, going forward, 'removal of anonymity is the most considerate action for the donor-conceived child.' A small minority of workshop participants argued for changing the law so that information would be available to donor-conceived people, even where donors had been promised anonymity under the pre-2005 legislation, noting that wanting to know a donor's identity did not necessarily mean wanting contact. Workshop attendees mostly agreed with interview participants' views that children have a right to be told they are donor conceived and that telling them younger is generally better. A double track system – donors choose between being identifiable when the child is 18 and being identifiable from the outset.Removing anonymity completely (prospectively), with increased emotional support for all and.Early identification by consent – from the outset or at any point before a child turns 18.Status quo plus: all donors remain anonymous until the child is 18 (the consent process covering the possibility of identification by direct-to-consumer genetic testing).As a starting point, we used the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA)'s donor anonymity discussion document, to discuss the following options: An open invitation was issued to stakeholder communities, and 40 people participated. These workshops took place in London, Manchester and Birmingham in November 2022 and January 2023. In three stakeholder workshops, we explored whether (and how) participants thought the UK law around donor anonymity should be changed. Clinicians, academics and policy-makers also participated in our workshops, and we have interviewed regulators in other jurisdictions where the law has been changed to remove donor anonymity. As part of the ConnecteDNA project (led from the University of Manchester by Dr Lucy Frith) we have reviewed the (legal and other) information on direct-to-consumer genetic testing providers' websites, carried out interviews and held stakeholder workshops with donors, donor-conceived people, and their relatives to explore the implications of genetic testing. This means that, in combination with information available on social media platforms, donor-conceived people may be able to identify their donor outside the regulated system. However, direct-to-consumer genetic testing now allows easy and relatively affordable access to online DNA tests and relative 'matching' services. The first cohort of children conceived under the new law will turn 18 from April this year, when they will be able to request their donor's identifying information using the HFEA's Opening the Register service. This approach changed in 2005, when the HFE Act was updated to provide that donors would remain anonymous only until any children resulting from their donation became adults. When the Human Fertilisation and Embryology (HFE) Act 1990 was first enacted it reflected a general presumption that gamete donation should be anonymous.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |