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

I think a sperm or egg donor should be able to withdraw consent.

I don’t think they should be actively contacted and asked for consent each time. But if they get in touch and withdraw consent, that should be allowed.

Life was created and is now going to be destroyed because the donor changed his mind

I don’t think you can use a “life is sacred” argument here. If you want to go down that route, surely you’d be against IVF altogether, which in the UK results in ~150,000 destroyed embryos per year.

These two couples are intentionally depriving their child of a father. I think that’s unethical. I also think that if the biological father has second thoughts about his part in this, he absolutely does have the right to withdraw his consent. It’s no different from the threads where posters ask what they should do if their DH doesn’t want a second child and they do.

Yes weird

That's interesting. I don't feel at all the same about it. The commodification of the body in surrogacy seems like a completely different level to me. I also feel a lot more worried about the impact on the children in surrogacy given the impact of adoption on children's attachment.

I think donors should be able to withdraw consent at any point before implementation though. Sad for those affected, but important legally.

The point of consent is donating the sperm. No one is forcing them to do that, they have pause for fully informed consent.

I don’t think many of them thought further than that they were doing a nice thing for infertile people.

Most of them weren’t expecting to have to deal with the fallout of random young adults turning up

Cells in a petri dish are not impregnated. So at that point they have not been used to impregnate.

And what if a woman using donated eggs changes her mind about the pregnancy and aborts it? Should she compensate the donor?

This is the issue with the whole donation system. It is a moral minefield, up there with surrogacy.

I know infertility is terrible but now it’s all about money and the right to have a child no matter what.

I think it’s quite odd how men are in general quite flippant about donating sperm

they could have loads of mini thems running about the place but it doesn’t seem to bother them
I don’t think they think it through properly on the whole

In the case of a heterosexual couple the man can withdraw consent if they subsequently split and he changes his mind about becoming a father.

Well no, the purpose of this thread is to discuss the validity period of that consent. It's not reasonable for a baby to be created many years after the consent was given.

And a poster saying financial compensation should be paid of the embryos have to be destroyed illustrates that point beautifully (if unintentionally)

They consent, sperm is frozen. They remove consent, sperm is destroyed. Anything in the middle is done and has been consented by the donation and the original consent. You’re literally consenting for your sperm to be used to impregnate … any further input is not needed

I agree. It was different perhaps when donors could rely on anonymity.

Someone may have been in a very different position when they donated versus when a bio child comes in to potentially blow up their lives.

Why would anyone be naive enough to risk it now?

And what if the law changed to put further obligations on the donor?

I think part of the problem is that young adults are often targeted (of both sexes). Once you have the benefit of maturity you fully understand what has happened. I think consent should be able to be withdrawn up to point of implantation.

Didn't Sophia Vegara have an issue with her ex wanted to use their embryos with his new DP. Rightly those embryos were destroyed.

I imagine plenty of people’s lives have been ruined by the change in law that children can know the identity of the donor.

They should balance that with allowing the donor consent but they won’t. So I would be surprised if any man who donate now.

It’s up there with surrogacy for me. The commodification of babies. You shouldn’t be able to buy your ability into having a child, it blurs the lines between consent too much when there is money and business involved.

Of course it’s very sad if you’re unable to have children, but there are things in life that are sad. We can’t just think throwing money at every problem means we don’t have to cope with the hand we’ve been dealt

I agree with you.

Totally agree with you.

They’re consenting for their sperm to be used as often as it’s available, don’t like it, don’t donate.

No different from a woman having an abortion when she was originally trying for a baby.

Circumstances change.

I think it's am unavoidable necessity given the law allowing children to know the identity of the donor.

The man's circumstances could have changed significantly, they may have bad their own children in the interim or they may have found out their partner is unable to have children and the prospect of having a child show up on their door in 15 years could be traumatic for all involved.

I think there maybe should be an, admittedly arbitrary, period after donation where consent remains but I do think there's a material difference in respect of frozen embryos where it could be 8 years since they donated.