What’s the general MN verdict on donor eggs?

[Sortilege]

The general critical re-examination of surrogacy is quite evident, and I have my own views on that, which I’ll keep quiet for the purposes of this thread.

Now I find myself chewing over other fertility treatment. I’ve had fertility treatment myself and so have family members. So I have a sense of how private clinics put you on a conveyor belt and normalise things.

What is the general view on donor eggs & embryos (implanted into the birth mother and gestated by her)?

Im trying really hard not to bias the result so have tossed a coin to assign YABU/YANBU to viewpoints. Don’t read into that.

YANBU = Donor gametes are ethically fine.
YABU = Donor gametes are problematic.

But adoptees are "allowed" to say birth mother and adoptive mother? Or birth mother and "mum" or whatever. The point being that the birth mother is (also) the mother.

You're right, of course. I wasn't untimely ripped from my father's arms. He couldn't give a toss about me (pun intended). That doesn't make me feel great.

As for the fact that my parents "really wanted" me -- sounds like the sort of thing adult children from dysfunctional families complain of in the thread "But we took you to stately homes". Them really wanting me doesn't make it ok.

The point about autonomy is misplaced. What about my body? What about my human rights?

Genetics really, really matter.

Genetics mattered when my child had a serious inherited disease and I didn't know my family medical history to answer the doctor's question.

Genetics mattered when one of my donor conceived siblings had bowel polyps... so we all had a colonoscopy. Another sibling was found to have polyps which would have become cancerous if she hadn't had the procedure.

Genetics mattered for an Australian woman called Narelle, who died of bowel cancer -- she'd inherited the gene from her bio father, a sperm donor who she'd tried to trace for years. She died six weeks after meeting him. Narelle's story

I completely hear you and I’m guessing you’re based in America where the process may be a bit different anyway.

I wasn’t suggesting prospective parents not be vetted or donors counselled what I mean is every child may have a potential problem with some aspect of their upbringing/parentage or what their parents did/didn’t do, it’s not unique to DCP.

I don’t believe anyone should be lying to their children about their origins. A child should know as soon as they’re old enough to understand the concept.

Policy is key to everything of course. I feel there needs to be room for donation of gametes - not specifically as a person who has had fertility concerns, as I don’t think I would go this route - but if you don’t have it (well regulated) then you’re going to be facing people doing at home insemination, child trafficking and exploitation on a bigger scale which all things considered is a bigger evil.

I’m glad people such as yourself are now of age to be able to voice opinions to shape the way legislation should be for future generations.

@Robinni what makes you think @mucky123 is in the States? I have no idea if you’re right, I just feel like I’m missing something.

@Sortilege they kept referencing legislation in different states - we don’t have states in the U.K.

@DonorConceivedMe
Re. Genetics really matter - I already said upthread I think that donors should have genetic testing done along with a full medical history and remain accessible to the child throughout life if possible (friend/family) or at least be contactable at 18. Because to not do any of that causes problems such as you’ve described.

I think @mucky123 talked about "the state" ie the government, not "the states".

Oh I see. Missed that. I thought she meant “the State” as in “the government”.

This sort of leads back to what I said before, plenty of children feel aggrieved for the circumstances they find themselves to be in life - no relationship with father, parents didn’t do xyz etc.

The emotion you have tied to this is huge, and valid and I’m sorry you’ve felt distressed as much as you have.

It comes across, to me, such as the pro life argument - at the gamete, early embryo stage is there a human rights case or are the rights of the adult superior?

Your Dad may have genuinely wanted to help other people, knowing you’d likely go to a comfortable home and be loved. Or he may have had financial issues. Who knows? Arguably, more consideration may have gone into the experience than occurs with many fathers where the primary motivation is to get their leg over.

Yes I see that now, could be read both ways.

Very informative thread. I think what’s come out of it for me is how much DCP need to be included in the conversation - something I intend on doing should I have to consider a donor egg at a later date.

Yes, I’ve concluded much the same. Which probably means sticking to the U.K. and asking pointed questions at the outset.

What a horrible, goady thread.

YANBU
I’m just sad that I was born too soon to sell my eggs to the highest bidder. I think the current law requiring them to be donated is unethical exploitation as we literally groom young women with the “be nice and kind” messaging to go through an invasive medical procedure with its own risks and consequences for fuck all.

Brainwashing women into giving away something so intrinsically valuable for nothing is the very definition of exploitation. I am glad that women can get discounts on IVF in return for some of their eggs because it reduces the inequality of access for poor women struggling with infertility. Why should IVF be only for the financially well off? I hope to see further law changes that will allow young women to actually be properly compensated for their eggs and for the stigma associated with it to disappear.

And please don’t compare this to organ or blood or bone marrow donation. They’re only similar in that they all originate in our bodies. Beyond that they are fundamentally different because they are life saving not life creating.

I also agree with the “her body, her choice” argument. I think too that counter arguments about young women being too naive and inexperienced to make decisions about their own bodies is infantilising. They’re adults. They have the right to make their own decisions. If you are deemed mature enough to decide to terminate a pregnancy or have a baby with zero parental knowledge at 16, then you can certainly navigate the decision on whether or not to sell some of your eggs at 18.

I have two children, one of which was conceived using donated eggs due to being menopausal at just 26 years old. We thought very long and hard, and had counselling before coming to this decision.
The child knows, and as far as I was made aware, there is the possibility to connect somehow with the anonymous donor once they reach adulthood.
The donor was part of an ‘egg share scheme’ whereby they needed IVF but couldn’t fund it and we could, so we essentially helped each other by them sharing their eggs with us in return for us essentially discounting/paying towards their treatment. Without each other, neither of us potentially could become pregnant, and I sincerely hope they achieved their dream as we did. Until you’ve been in that position you don’t truely know what you’d do.

Buying and selling body parts is never going to be in the best interests of the resulting child, is it? People can try and justify their need/desire to have a child any way they want but the psychological implications for that child are huge. Should it be allowed in the first place? IMO, no.

I find the attitude that anything done to enable someone to have a child is by definition a good thing and not open for any discussion very worrying.

Yes. Refusal to debate or hear anything other than a confirming echo chamber is unhealthy wherever it occurs.

It's neither. You just don't understand the discussion or why it needs to be had.

I find the attitude that anything done to enable someone to have a child is by definition a good thing and not open for any discussion very worrying.

Absolutely.

There is this odd double think going on also whereby those using donors sometimes seem to minimise what all this means for the donor (just a bunch of cells) but simultaneously talk about how important it is to them (using some very emotive language).

We need a more honest debate and a lot more exploration of the long term impacts on donors and children conceived of donors.

I do not agree with intentionally creating a life when that child will grow up not knowing one or both of their genetic parents. Knowing who you are and what you come from is a very deep and powerful need in humans. I have been stunned by how clearly my child has inherited temperament and personality traits from both her parents.

Of course it is incredibly sad when for whatever reason a woman/couple wants a child but cannot have one. It does not mean that we should disregard the impact on any potential child. It is not enough to say that generally speaking most of these children will be glad to be alive. That is setting the bar too low. I grew up without knowing half of my genetic makeup and it is not without negative psychological effect.

Because a woman who carries and gives birth to a baby is the mother. That's the legal position. She does not need to adopt her own child and that's why surrogates need to release their children for adoption.

Donors are not birth mothers. To suggest they are is nonsense and not how the law sees it either.

Donors are not birth mothers. To suggest they are is nonsense and not how the law sees it either

But they are genetic mothers.

Donors are not birth mothers.

They are genetic mothers. We shouldn't be minimising that

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6993870/

Paper arguing for use of donor eggs as a general rule in the event of poor prognosis. Lays things out quite well in terms of arguments for/against. Something to chew over.

Also from a biological standpoint, the phenotype is shaped via epigenetic modulation in utero determining for example brain development and metabolism.

One example of this you could say is how babies conceived during rationing in WW2 were predisposed to obesity/diabetes/hypertension in later life due to not only malnutrition but because their bodies had been set up to cope in times of food shortages, but then they were born into a world of plenty.

I haven’t studied epigenetics in detail, however on the face of it the gestational mother would contribute quite significantly to phenotype of the child….. they’d be a different person entirely if gestated in the bio mums womb and exposed to different environmental variables in childhood.

By the by if anyone is reading around this, needless to say read from Mendeley/Science direct/Google scholar and avoid fertility site propaganda.