AIBU to think sperm donors should consent before each embryo is used?

YABMU and this is a very stupid post.

I’m not sure that I agree there had been no consent; having given consent and allowed a couple to go through the whole process of egg retrieval and embryo creation & storage, it’s a very harsh thing to allow people to withdraw consent at that point and the clinic not cover the couple’s cost with some form of indemnity.

But that makes no sense - the donor was paid £45. So they ‘pay back’ £45? Or are you suggesting by compensation that they are sued for more? I think you are in effect making sperm donation untenable. Plus both the couples HAD a child, this was about getting a sibling. This is highly
relevant as it explains why the costs were
quite so high and why there has been time
for the donor to change their mind or for their circumstances to have changed.

.. and actually re-reading that article from the BBC makes me quite cross. No attempt
to give a context of how fertility treatment works, entirely people/emotion led. Both couples have a child out of their 23k fertility treatment. Many people spend that amount and don’t have a live birth. This is about multiple siblings from the same father. From an NHS funding perspective (which I know this isn’t) you would not qualify for funding in this scenario of wanting a second child. It’s pretty presumptive to assume you can go on and have multiples.

The donor has to be given the same choices as a parent would be given - they may consent to one child at time one close to fertilisation but yes, they may well feel differently at time 2/3/4 when they know how many embryos there are (10 in one case) and the time period between child 1 and child X. They may have changed their opinion of sperm donation as they age and regret doing it at all or they may still support sperm donation but have concerns about a child coming to them when they are in their sixties, seventies or at a time they may be less able to cope with this. The rules won’t change on this as it would be wholly unreasonable if they were to. A tweak could be for them to consent to fertilisation and implantation but not embryo freezing. Not sure if that is possible now and it would be problematic for women who have a cycle of egg donation then need a break before implementation eg if their uterine lining doesn’t look great.

That’s not equivalent. There is no body involved yet.

The equivalent is once the ivf embryo is inside a woman, he or the female egg donor can’t ask for it to be destroyed/aborted.

here, it’s outside the body so my body my choice doesn’t apply and both bio parents can make that choice. Same as ivf embryos both parents have to agree

(though I do think donors could sign contract to agree to give back compensation if they change their mind for violating contract)

Interesting. I never really thought about this before. I have always held that a person controls their genetic material only as long as it is not inside someone else’s body. This was obviously about abortion, but does the logic extend? Yes, I think it has to hold.

Any participant in the fertility process should be able to withdraw consent up until the moment the genetic material is inside another person.

Is that inconvenient, expensive, and utterly devastating? Absolutely. However, we should not change the principle that people are in control of their own genetic material and their own bodies at all time.

I think what people are getting wrong here is referring to ‘contracts’ and payments like this is a business transaction. Fundamentally egg and sperm donation IS altruistic (leaving aside reciprocal treatment arrangements at clinics). There isn’t a payment as such, it’s remuneration for expenses only a £45 sperm, cap of £985 for egg as obviously it’s much more invasive and needs numerous appointments. The whole process is strictly regulated by HFEA. You’d need to go back to before 1991 to find anyone using sperm donation as a part time job.

Practically, the donnor is unable to reliably maintain anonymity even if the child wasn't told their identity. It isn't only a legal change but also change in the reality. Ancestry and so on.
And yes, it supports some level of withdrawal of consent.

The question is just where the line goes - when the embryo exists and is selected for a specific transfer date, it is already in the same developmental stage as an embryo developing inside woman's body, the pre-implantation medication is administered... Potentially, her own eggs are commited and spent.

When using the donated sperm to create an embryo, there should be a legitimate expectation to be able to use it within some timeframe. Whether it would be 3-6-12-24 months and whether it should be assumed or be regularly confirmed is a question.

I should proof read more!

Not on that occasion no. But he can decide whether there will be subsequent occasions on which he provides it. He doesn't owe the woman future children.

I find the idea that so many posters seem to consider consent as something that only applies to women disturbing.

Bullshit. This couple decided to using sperm that was donated on the condition that* *consent could be withdrawn. They don't get to retrospectively renegotiate that regardless of how much money they've spent.

Once he’s ‘donated’ it, he can’t ask for it back, can he?

The man consented to donation with understanding that his consent could be withdrawn at any time up until they are transferred to a womb so that is absolutely what he should be able to do. It's sad for the couple involved but tough shit really.

Absolutely. It is too late to change your mind once embryos exist.

No. Just because a man ejaculates inside a woman once doesn't give her the right to his sperm ever more. Even if she conceived from the first time.

Doesn’t matter what type of genetic material it is. You cannot possibly think it is reasonable that someone can donate and consent to their material being used in ivf, it is used with all the pain and expense, then at the last minute they can pull the plug. That’s just torturing people- if you don’t want the material to be used then don’t donate, but don’t mess with people’s feelings.

Also if you want to run that kind of line then the person withdrawing consent should be responsible for all the costs of the process, plus damages for the prospective parents.

Oh, and before you try it, in non ivf type reproduction men only hve the right to withdraw consent up to the point they have sex, after that it is “her body her choice” so the equivalent is once they have donated.

That's one brilliant autocorrect.

That’s how it works with the more direct method of sperm provision isn’t it?

Yes I think men need to give consent for each implantation. It can’t just be for embryo creation. In order to create one child, usually several embryos need to be created.

TBH, this is one of the ugly side-effects of commodifying human life.

That’s a different situation, where a couple have agreed to create embryos together there should be different rules for a speed donut.

Nik said the couple felt "blindsided" by the fact that their sperm donor could withdraw consent at that stage.
"Yes, we'd signed something," she added. "But we didn't ever recall it being verbally said."

people have got to read and understand contracts. So important!

Agree

my donor sperm was a few years frozen before we picked him and we had 8 years between kids. Would have absolutely devastated me if i could not have my second baby / as a full sibling

my donor was single and knew he was going on to meet someone and have his own

I was 100% on Sofia Vergara's side when she stopped her ex from transferring their embryos into his new partner's womb, so I'm on the side of the sperm donor here as well.

This. An embryo conceived in the woman's body is part of her body and entirely her choice what she does with it. An embryo conceived in a petri dish is as much part of the man's body as the woman's, and therefore both parents have equal say.