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.

What do you imagine is goady about it @torfa ?

It’s so complex and emotional.

I believe my desire to have children is important, but not more important than the welfare and emotional wellbeing of my child- who will be an individual in their own right and won’t be my ‘baby’ forever, they will be teenagers and adults with complex questions and feelings.

For this reason, we did everything we could to make our decisions around starting our family accordingly.

We are really lucky. We had the option of a known donor.

Our child knows every single person involved in their conception, from the doctor who collected my eggs to the embryologist who selected the specific sperm to inject into a specific egg to create the blastocyst that was transferred back into me and ultimately grew into the person they are today.

They also know their biological father and although we are a ‘two parent family’ (two mums), our child will grow up knowing exactly who is who and will have access to their full medical history, knowledge about their conception and time/ opportunities to ask any questions directly to the people they choose to ask and will not need to wait until they are 18 to find out about their conception of the identity of their biological family.

They have a stable and loving home with two mums but they also know their biological father, cousins and grandparents, who love them to bits.

My wife, myself, our child’s biological father and his long term partner are all in therapy and also had group counselling prior to ivf.

Ultimately, we all acknowledged that there are infinite uncertainties, unknowns, potential changes and challenges ahead of us so we agreed on one core principle: no matter what issues arise, we will always be honest with one another and maintain good communication so that we always act in the best interest of the individual(s) we are responsible for bringing into the world. That their well-being comes first and we acknowledge and shoulder the complexity of the situation rather than sweeping it under the rug until they turn 18.

Our sperm donor has an irreplaceable and significant identity in relation to our child but he is not a parent- he has no parental rights or responsibilities. Our child has two mums. But our child(ren) knows/will know their biological father from the moment they are born and they will be able to ask him anything they want.

We are incredibly lucky to have had this opportunity. Our donor took a year to decide if he was comfortable with donating his sperm. He is such a stable and thoughtful individual.

We all have very clear boundaries that we put in place collaboratively, and these will always be informed by our child’s needs and desires.

From a reserved and gentle distance, our donor makes it abundantly clear that he loves our son and wants nothing but the best for him.

I’m not sure I know many people who could do that and do it with such calm, trust and clarity.

When planning our family, I needed to be sure I could look my child(ren) in the eyes and say, ‘we made every decision with your best interests at the centre of every stage of the process. You can ask us anything. You can share your feelings no matter what they are. And your biological father loves you, knows you and wanted you to exist and thrive in the world.”

Anything less would have felt like I was putting my desire to be a Mum first, regardless of the rights and welfare of any resulting children.

It’s a tough one. I have lots of friends who have used anonymous donors for a variety of reasons. I love them all and their kids are wonderful. But personally I couldn’t do it.

My heart aches for anyone involved in this complex and emotive process.

Thanks @Robinni

I remember finding articles and abstracts, at the time we had to make a decision, that suggested epigenetics were being overemphasised as a salve to intended parents, which completely threw me then. So it will be interesting to read something more comprehensive. I’ll save it for after work,

Agree donors are genetic mothers/fathers. It is a different terminology to birth mother but no less valid imo.

I understand that the legal position currently is that the person who carried and gave birth to the child is the legal mother. I think in the case of egg donation (and sperm donation) there should be a clear space on the birth certificate for the "third" or "fourth" parent. To ignore their part in the creation of the child or to simply refer to it as a donation of a bunch of cells reduces their role/ignores reality probably to the detriment of the child who then has to process it all later in life whilst trying to adhere to the myth created for them.

I see it as a form of early adoption and I think viewing it this way would start to change the narrative around it for the benefit ultimately of all.

Just FYI, if anyone still cares. No I am based in UK, created in Harley Street. By state I meant the UK government (but could be government in other countries).

@mucky123

I see it as a form of early adoption

I think this is kind of the way I see it too, though the modulation of gene expression and potential transfer of genetic material from the gestational Mum muddies the waters quite a bit…. If anything you could say three parent baby.

It probably will become standard practice to have a three parent set up anyway - unless major genetic issue - as now possible to enucleate an egg and add gestational Mum DNA…. Done primarily to avoid mitochondrial disease but only a matter of time really until brought over into fertility treatment, been in the works quite some time.

time.com/5569057/three-parent-baby-dna/?amp=true

There is, what I find to be, fascinating article published this year on the epigenetics of pregnancy. Probably quite hard to grasp if no background in cellular biology - but there are plenty of A level type videos that can help on youtube to fill in knowledge gaps. And some nice diagrams in this as well.

link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10815-022-02451-x

Might I say - hearing from @amoobaa @Frazzledmum123 about their use of sperm/egg donation has been very heartening. As was reading about Cynthia Nixon and her wife’s arrangement with another (male) couple to conceive and rear a child together. Hard to know how the children themselves will feel about it, but a world with more love and support can’t be bad. Of course means developing a close relationship with 2-3 other people rather than just one so a challenge but probably preferable.

We're in a lot of trouble in terms of women's reproductive rights if we confuse gametes with the potential to result in children, with children themselves. They are different things.

This is not to diminish the genetic legacy that is passed from donor to child. But it is to say that adoption is a poor comparison.

The logic seems to shift depending on what the 'commissioning' person wants it to be.

Agree with this. It’s quite telling.

And ‘epigenetics’ is doing some heavy lifting on this thread, and it comes across as wishful thinking.

I agree that adoption is a poor comparison. With donor eggs the child is being conceived especially for you. Not the case with adopting an existing child.

@SomethingOnce I am qualified and posted the scientific papers I did because I thought they would be interesting… not to sway argument to one side or the other.. Just to make that clear.

Extracellular vesicles as a means to intercellular communication (one of the many things noted in the second paper), is one of the most interesting things in cellular biology right now going beyond developmental biology to immune response, coagulation etc.

The way things are being thought about now is that the genome is modulated throughout life due to environmental factors, with a key period determining phenotype being gestation and the first 1000 days of life. Which I think is important for people to consider if DCP; that the environment in womb and beyond has contributed towards the person that they are… as with everyone.

‘Science’ is not wishful thinking…

Genetics may be meaningless to some, but they’re extremely important to others. Ultimately no one knows what genetics will mean to the child created from a donor, even if said child is told by the parents that they’re irrelevant.

It’s also potentially difficult for the donors, because while some may be interested in having a relationship with their biological offspring, you’ll have others that won’t have the slightest interest and will reject contact outright.

There’s a multitude of issues.

100% this.
not to in any way dismiss the absolute relevance and importance to all people to understand their biological heritage, and the pain of being kept in the dark about that, but gamete donation is not comparable to early adoption. A sperm is not a baby, nor is an egg.

www.theguardian.com/society/2022/may/20/uk-fertility-watchdog-could-recommend-scrapping-donor-anonymity-law?fbclid=IwAR2iDMchCZYR-rBbZzzEqc4HIIZ9q6R_v5JH3PcFNxbx9Tz9EIE_0OF6vS8

Topical.

I guess the comparison to adoption is poor in the sense you say @Equalbutdifferent Gametes are just gametes until they become an actual child and I don't think anything around the decision-making of a woman in relation to her body should change.

However, for lots of DC people we use the literature and studies done in relation to adoption (of which they are currently lots more than in relation to DC) to help frame the narrative of the "genetic bewilderment"/separation from bio family that some of us feel. Obviously there are other parts of adoption that do not apply to the DC narrative (separation from birth mother, in utero trauma, post-natal trauma etc).

The other thing that is helpful in relation to adoption is the birth certificate. There is an initial birth certificate showing the birth/bio parents which is changed following the adoption to reflect that legal process. I would argue that there should be a similar process with DC people (perhaps reflecting the 3 parties that are part of the child's make-up but only showing two with parental responsibility).

Really informative. Thank you

The other thing to think about when contemplating donor conception is the unequal status of the two parents -- depending on exactly what gametes they use, who is the gestational parent etc. And as a PP said, having a DC child is saying both "genetics really matter" and "genetics really don't matter" at the same time.

There are families where a child was born via donor conception, then the parents had a child which was genetically "theirs" -- both of them. The difference in treatment between the donor conceived child and the "natural" child is striking. You're basically creating a child with the "step-parent" role built in. And we all know how difficult step-family relationships can be.

Lots of stories available on Anonymous Us . It's not all people who agree with me btw ;-)

I shared my eggs when I was doing IVF in return for a free round. Luckily for me, it worked first time and as far as I recall, my recipient had a successful pregnancy too. I have zero regrets and certainly didn’t feel forced in to the situation. I had the means to pay for IVF but decided to help another family going through infertility and I was having the invasive procedure in any case. I am fully aware that I may be contacted by a biological child of mine around the same time my son turns 18 and quite possibly at a later date too from siblings, should there have been subsequent successful pregnancies from the eggs that I shared.

I see it as a form of early adoption

How lovely for you. That's not how the law sees it though so your opinion is pretty irrelevant.

Anyone who thinks that genes trump everything else is setting an insane precedent. Surrogacy will always exist (whether people agree or not) and prioritising the genetic mother means that surrogates will become nothing more than wombs for hire.

The law deems the mother to be the woman who gave birth and that should always be the case.

I see it as a form of early adoption and I think viewing it this way would start to change the narrative around it for the benefit ultimately of all

No. A thousand times no. It really really wouldn't. That's some kind of fucked up handmaid's tale, pro life bullshit.

Foetuses don't even have rights FFS, let alone a cell. You can't adopt a cell.

Seriously. The shit spouted on here is frightening.

An egg. Yes.
An embryo?? That's basically adoption ....

@orwellwasright

Respectfully, this is a discussion forum. No one’s opinion is irrelevant. And you can not force your ideology into other people, anymore than they could on you.

I empathised with @mucky123 and could see where they were coming from, because for me to have a donor egg would be “adopting” potentially a complete strangers genetic lineage into my family. And I’m not sure I would want to. That is not what it would feel like for all people just as not everyone has the same viewpoint on abortion.

Swearing, ranting, raving and saying different opinions aren’t permissible isn’t liable to convince people of your point of view.

You can see why that description might be seen as helpful though? For recognising the genetic heritage? Not as an approach to legal parentage.

The fact is egg donation isn’t adoption but it isn’t as straightforward as IVF with your own gametes. So society isn’t still adjusting to it.

The only comparators we have for “children not genetically related to one or both parents” are “adopted children” and “step children”. It’s not offensive (or sci-fi) to say, “these are the pools of experience we have to draw on”,

Society IS still adjusting to it, I mean.

I don't think donating gameets is ethical. Functionally, it's selling or giving away children, which is not ok.

what do you mean by “functionally”? So you think gametes are children?
reminds me of this song: