Sperm donor anonymity overturned by B.C. court

Praxius

Mass'Debater
Dec 18, 2007
10,609
99
48
Halifax, NS & Melbourne, VIC
Sperm donor anonymity overturned by B.C. court - British Columbia - CBC News

The B.C. Supreme Court has struck down provincial legislation that protected the identity of sperm donors. The court also prohibited the future destruction of any records and ordered the province to draw up new legislation in line with the Charter of Rights.

Lawyers for Olivia Pratten had argued that the existing rules discriminated against the children of sperm donors, and the court ruled in Olivia Pratten's favour on Thursday by striking down a section of the B.C. Adoption Act.

In the decision, Justice Elaine Adair wrote that the rights of the child must be protected in sperm donation, much like they are protected in cases of adoption in B.C.

"I conclude, based on the whole of the evidence, that assisted reproduction using an anonymous gamete donor is harmful to the child, and it is not in the best interests of donor offspring," wrote Adair.

"I grant a permanent injunction, in accordance with these reasons, prohibiting the destruction, disposal, redaction or transfer out of B.C. of gamete donor records in British Columbia," she wrote.

The ruling gives the province 15 months to enact conforming changes to the B.C. Adoption Act that are in line with the Charter of Rights.

Adair found the Act was unconstitutional because it treats adopted children differently from children of sperm donors. Adopted children are provided information about their biological parents, whereas the children of donors are not.
'Total win'

Pratten was conceived through sperm donation. The 28-year-old Ontario journalist fought for years to learn her biological father's identity, but was eventually told the doctor legally destroyed the records in the 1990s.

"It is a total win for us. No more anonymity. Donor offspring have been recognized as having the same rights as adoptees in B.C.," said Pratten after the ruling was released.

She then decided to sue the B.C. government on behalf of other children who still have hopes of learning their parentage and to ensure donor records are preserved indefinitely and that children can have access to the records when they turn 19.
Limited effect on fertility clinics

Dr. Albert Yuzpe of Genesis Fertility Clinic said he has no issue with what Pratten has pioneered and the decision is not likely to affect work at his clinic in Surrey, B.C., because 80 per cent of his patients already chose sperm from "known identity" donors.

He also notes Canada has only one sperm bank, based in Toronto, and the majority of sperm comes from American sperm banks. At his clinic he does 600 donor sperm cycles per year, and only one or two involve Canadian donors, he said.

Yuzpe also said it is unclear if the decision would force anonymous American sperm donors to be identified.
----------------------


I know that in both Australia & Canada, there is a high demand for sperm donors..... I doubt this will improve the situation and I'm guessing it'll make the options even fewer.

And I predict that those anonymous US donors will have to eventually be identified or they won't be allowed across the border, because they would need to meet Canadian Law..... so I'd expect that source to die off soon too.

I never agreed with the idea of revealing the names of sperm donors, simply because it's not the same as adoption..... why I feel it's not the same is because one man's sperm could be used in numerous donations to numerous women...... which means numerous children eventually wanting to know who that man is and could lead to making that guys life a living hell when he has dozens of children knocking at his door or seeking some sort of compensation..... where an adoption is generally related to one child.

Also, where is the responsibility for the mother who opted for sperm donation? Yes she decided to raise the child and take care of it and good for her..... but she chose the donation, she accepted that it was an anonymous donation and like many things in the world, children don't get a say.

They don't get a say when they're given up for adoption, they don't get a say when it comes to abortion decisions, they don't get a say when it comes to most medical procedures, they don't get a say as to what school they go to, they don't get a say when they can drive, or drink or smoke or buy porn or where their family lives, among many other things.

The only logical argument they had for releasing the names of the donors was towards medical complications or things passed on through genetics which could affect the child later on in life and thus, they should know about those things..... I completely understand that.

This decision doesn't affect me personally, as I'd never donate my sperm in the first place...... but all that needed to do was to make the medical records of the donor available for the child and their doctor, which would make everybody happy.

If I remember correctly, they already do that, or at least they heavily screen donors before hand for such things.

If they're bothered that much for not knowing who their father is..... they can blame their mother for that. The donors simply did what they did out of the kindness of their own penis.

Now it seems the onus falls on the donor and I doubt many who thought about being a donor would go through with it now.

Tis the end of the sperm donor me thinks and if not..... I wouldn't expect the variety to be very great.

Oh and now you can expect many anonymous sperm donors sueing the living snot out of the clinics for breaking their agreed contract in relation to keeping them anonymous.
 

damngrumpy

Executive Branch Member
Mar 16, 2005
9,949
21
38
kelowna bc
This is a good thing, there are all kinds of people out there born into a situation not of
their making and they haven't got a clue about medical history. Adoption rules in the
past were bad enough but these rules should never have been allowed in the first place.
Anonymity in this kind of situation is not acceptable.
 

PoliticalNick

The Troll Bashing Troll
Mar 8, 2011
7,940
0
36
Edson, AB
Yeah I can't see this doing anything to promote more sperm donors.

In a lot of situations it is a married couple where he has no motile sperm that use donors and this does not address the issue of their privacy at all.

I don't even know which section of the charter they are referring to where is supposedly says we have a right to know our biological parents.

This is a good thing, there are all kinds of people out there born into a situation not of
their making and they haven't got a clue about medical history. Adoption rules in the
past were bad enough but these rules should never have been allowed in the first place.
Anonymity in this kind of situation is not acceptable.

So what about all these wonders of modern medicine. All medical history does is help determine if there is some predisposition to certain disorders. It is still up to a doctor to diagnose. Don't just think about the request for anonymity of the donor but also the request of the birth mother and her partner or spouse. I see it as nothing more than an invasion of privacy on 2 or 3 responsible adults.

I can see as many turkey basters being used in the future as we have seen coat hangers for abortions in the past. The problem that then arises is there will be no screening for genetic disorders.
 

Praxius

Mass'Debater
Dec 18, 2007
10,609
99
48
Halifax, NS & Melbourne, VIC
This is a good thing, there are all kinds of people out there born into a situation not of
their making and they haven't got a clue about medical history. Adoption rules in the
past were bad enough but these rules should never have been allowed in the first place.
Anonymity in this kind of situation is not acceptable.

All they require is the medical records of the donar, there is no justification for releasing their identities.

..... I can see as many turkey basters being used in the future as we have seen coat hangers for abortions in the past. The problem that then arises is there will be no screening for genetic disorders.

Don't forget STD's.

As mentioned before, my biggest concern in this situation is that one donor's sperm can be used for multiple women, which produces multiple children.

You end up having multiple children going after that one donor and then most likely sueing them for child support & other crap that they didn't help with over the years.

And don't think many of these kids won't do this, because it has been done plenty of times with adoptions and people involved in one night stands.

Now take these donors having this tossed their way with multiple children.

They'll be screwed and their only chance of not being tossed into the street is to sue these clinics for breaking their contracts.

So we can all say goodbye to the sperm donor clinics in Canada if that starts happening, because it'd only take a couple of men winning their cases to shut them down due to no longer having any money to run their business.
 

PoliticalNick

The Troll Bashing Troll
Mar 8, 2011
7,940
0
36
Edson, AB
We don't get to know who the blood donor is if we get blood. If the donor requests anonymity in organ donations they are kept anonymous. I just don't get this. I do understand that if it works like the adoption laws the child cannot ask for identification until they are 19 but I'n mot sure about retro child support in those circumstances. It would be quite an emotional trauma to the donor and his family to suddenly have potentially dozens of children appear. What if his present partner didn't know he was a donor? What about his current children? If his kids are very young how are they going to be effected and understand. This is so far from being a good ruling I have to wonder if the judge was drunk.
 

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
547
113
Vernon, B.C.
Best news today............every person deserves (and sometimes needs) to know his/her ancestry for ethnic and medical reasons.
 

PoliticalNick

The Troll Bashing Troll
Mar 8, 2011
7,940
0
36
Edson, AB
Best news today............every person deserves (and sometimes needs) to know his/her ancestry for ethnic and medical reasons.
Every person also deserves a good home and a living wage...the govt doesn't make laws to give them to us though.

And what about what the donor deserves? He was just trying to help someone and could be faced with having many children he didn't want appear 20 years later. All this talk of medical reasons is a cop-out, donors are well screened for genetic disorders and std's etc. Are our doctors that bad they can't diagnose something without having the biological parent around?
 

Praxius

Mass'Debater
Dec 18, 2007
10,609
99
48
Halifax, NS & Melbourne, VIC
Best news today............every person deserves (and sometimes needs) to know his/her ancestry for ethnic and medical reasons.

Ethnic?

Look in the damn mirror. I can look in the mirror, see my freckles and red hair to know I come from a celtic origin.

Besides, what does it matter what their ethnic background is? It has no direct impact on their lives or their equality in our nation. Like anybody else, they can freely choose what religion they want, what jobs they want, where they want to live, etc. They were born in Canada and thus, they're Canadian.

As for medical resons, giving someone's identity away has no relation to this, especially if the donor's medical background has already been screened and that medical information is provided.

They should be damn happy they exist in the first place, that they have parents who already love them for who they are and raised them as their own.

If they want to target someone for them being from a sperm donor, they should blame the mother.

If women have the right to determine what happens to their own body in regards to abortions, etc..... then they should also be responsible for this, not the donor who agreed to remain anonymous and signed a binding contract ensuring this.

It's not like Donors benefit from donation or get any sort of profit from donating.
 

shadowshiv

Dark Overlord
May 29, 2007
17,545
120
63
50
"I conclude, based on the whole of the evidence, that assisted reproduction using an anonymous gamete donor is harmful to the child, and it is not in the best interests of donor offspring," wrote Adair.

Harmful to the child? I think the donor being anonymous is a hell of a lot less hurtful than the child not existing at all, which is what could have happened had this idiotic ruling been in effect when the donor that was responsible for that child being around decided NOT to donate at all because of it.

I think the judges in Canada need to get their asses punted out of their positions because they make idiotic after idiotic ruling!
 

PoliticalNick

The Troll Bashing Troll
Mar 8, 2011
7,940
0
36
Edson, AB
Just a hypothetical question here. What if the donation is done through a private contract outside the MSP between the donor and the mother (or couple)? Would this ruling still apply?
 

Praxius

Mass'Debater
Dec 18, 2007
10,609
99
48
Halifax, NS & Melbourne, VIC
"I conclude, based on the whole of the evidence, that assisted reproduction using an anonymous gamete donor is harmful to the child, and it is not in the best interests of donor offspring," wrote Adair.

Harmful to the child? I think the donor being anonymous is a hell of a lot less hurtful than the child not existing at all, which is what could have happened had this idiotic ruling been in effect when the donor that was responsible for that child being around decided NOT to donate at all because of it.

I think the judges in Canada need to get their asses punted out of their positions because they make idiotic after idiotic ruling!

Agreed.

Maybe they should have had this ruling back before she was born, cuz then she probably would never have existed to b*tch & complain in the first place.

Back when this case was still going, it was already well established that her donor's records were already destroyed in the 90's and thus this case had no direct relation to her situation, so why the judge allowed her to continue "Representing" all the other donor kids makes no sense to me because this case had nothing to do with her. She only decided to do this out of some vindictive objective against the clinic that did exactly what they agreed to do in their contract with the donor....... and back when I first heard of this case being made I saw her in the news on TV with her own mother who took the donation standing right behind her and supporting her case for seeking the identity of the donor...... Yet she was the one who agreed to the sperm donation, knew the donor was anonymous from the get-go and yet she still went ahead with it...... and she & her mother acted as though it was all the donor's fault by the way she was talking to the media.

Here's the original article I posted here a year or so ago:

The Donor vs. The Child
http://forums.canadiancontent.net/news/96741-donor-vs-child.html

I'm sorry, but it's just one big fu*ked up situation and I personally believe her intentions in this case were/are very questionable..... and I don't believe the courts made the right decision in this matter.

Oh well I guess.... the consequences will be that the amount of sperm donation available will be almost nill.

Just a hypothetical question here. What if the donation is done through a private contract outside the MSP between the donor and the mother (or couple)? Would this ruling still apply?

Actually near the end of my last post, that crossed my mind.

Since the court is deeming the whole thing "Un-Constitutional" chances are the donor and the mother both signing a contract keeping the donor anonymous would probably be moot.

The best bet would be to try and hope for a verbal contract between the two to keep the donation a complete secret from the child and hope the mother and other "Father" will take their secret to the grave...... which isn't a great assurance.

The whole argument about ethnic history or wanting to know the donor's family history tells me that the child doesn't want to be a part of their current parent's history or background and that the donor's past is more important.

Since that doesn't sound very nice towards their parents whom raised them, let alone logical, I'm guessing it's a cop-out argument in order to later seek compensation from the donor and grab some money.

The whole thing is crap and in my opinion based on the information provided and this woman's own words/arguments, she's got a serious chip on her shoulder and taking a very low road.

Be happy with what you got, be happy for the family that loves you and raised you.... and move on with your life.
 

PoliticalNick

The Troll Bashing Troll
Mar 8, 2011
7,940
0
36
Edson, AB
Since the court is deeming the whole thing "Un-Constitutional" chances are the donor and the mother both signing a contract keeping the donor anonymous would probably be moot.
I would still like to know which part of the constitution is being referred to. I have never heard of this right to know your biological parents in the constitution or charter.
 

shadowshiv

Dark Overlord
May 29, 2007
17,545
120
63
50
Agreed.

Maybe they should have had this ruling back before she was born, cuz then she probably would never have existed to b*tch & complain in the first place.

Back when this case was still going, it was already well established that her donor's records were already destroyed in the 90's and thus this case had no direct relation to her situation, so why the judge allowed her to continue "Representing" all the other donor kids makes no sense to me because this case had nothing to do with her. She only decided to do this out of some vindictive objective against the clinic that did exactly what they agreed to do in their contract with the donor....... and back when I first heard of this case being made I saw her in the news on TV with her own mother who took the donation standing right behind her and supporting her case for seeking the identity of the donor...... Yet she was the one who agreed to the sperm donation, knew the donor was anonymous from the get-go and yet she still went ahead with it...... and she & her mother acted as though it was all the donor's fault by the way she was talking to the media.

Here's the original article I posted here a year or so ago:

The Donor vs. The Child
http://forums.canadiancontent.net/news/96741-donor-vs-child.html

I'm sorry, but it's just one big fu*ked up situation and I personally believe her intentions in this case were/are very questionable..... and I don't believe the courts made the right decision in this matter.

Oh well I guess.... the consequences will be that the amount of sperm donation available will be almost nill.



Actually near the end of my last post, that crossed my mind.

Since the court is deeming the whole thing "Un-Constitutional" chances are the donor and the mother both signing a contract keeping the donor anonymous would probably be moot.

The best bet would be to try and hope for a verbal contract between the two to keep the donation a complete secret from the child and hope the mother and other "Father" will take their secret to the grave...... which isn't a great assurance.

The only information that a donor child should get is if there are any medical histories that they should be aware of(peanut allergies running in the family, or some other allergies). I'm not sure if they would allow someone to be a donor who was allergic to peanuts, I was just using that as an example.

I'm wondering if the mother is backing her daughter due to her worrying that the daughter will "disown" her for not "having her back" and deciding that this was the lesser of two evils.
 

Praxius

Mass'Debater
Dec 18, 2007
10,609
99
48
Halifax, NS & Melbourne, VIC
I would still like to know which part of the constitution is being referred to. I have never heard of this right to know your biological parents in the constitution or charter.

Nor have I and was part of my original argument in the past thread I linked above.

The only information that a donor child should get is if there are any medical histories that they should be aware of(peanut allergies running in the family, or some other allergies). I'm not sure if they would allow someone to be a donor who was allergic to peanuts, I was just using that as an example.

I'm wondering if the mother is backing her daughter due to her worrying that the daughter will "disown" her for not "having her back" and deciding that this was the lesser of two evils.

An assumption on my part, but my guess would be along those lines. Her mother was there her whole life and raised her and probably would feel guilty for tossing that blame & responsibility for her actions onto her..... it's just easier to try and punish someone you never met & don't know for the things you don't like in your life.

Men's rights in regards to sexuality & reporduction aren't equal to women's after all. In comparison, we're more objects / tools / wallets then anything else...... and in many cases & situations, I accepted that and have no issues..... but this is where I draw the line.
 

shadowshiv

Dark Overlord
May 29, 2007
17,545
120
63
50
An assumption on my part, but my guess would be along those lines. Her mother was there her whole life and raised her and probably would feel guilty for tossing that blame & responsibility for her actions onto her..... it's just easier to try and punish someone you never met & don't know for the things you don't like in your life.

That's a good point. They would rather blame the man for not being there for them than to be thankful that, because of the donor, they have a life to bitch about in the first place.
 

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
547
113
Vernon, B.C.
Every person also deserves a good home and a living wage...the govt doesn't make laws to give them to us though.

And what about what the donor deserves? He was just trying to help someone and could be faced with having many children he didn't want appear 20 years later. All this talk of medical reasons is a cop-out, donors are well screened for genetic disorders and std's etc. Are our doctors that bad they can't diagnose something without having the biological parent around?

I have to disagree on both counts................Every person deserves the opportunity to earn a living wage and hence buy an adequate home................unless of course he is physically or mentally handicapped. The medical and ethnic history of the donor can be disclosed without any further obligation.

Ethnic?

Look in the damn mirror. I can look in the mirror, see my freckles and red hair to know I come from a celtic origin.

Besides, what does it matter what their ethnic background is? It has no direct impact on their lives or their equality in our nation. Like anybody else, they can freely choose what religion they want, what jobs they want, where they want to live, etc. They were born in Canada and thus, they're Canadian.

As for medical resons, giving someone's identity away has no relation to this, especially if the donor's medical background has already been screened and that medical information is provided.

They should be damn happy they exist in the first place, that they have parents who already love them for who they are and raised them as their own.

If they want to target someone for them being from a sperm donor, they should blame the mother.

If women have the right to determine what happens to their own body in regards to abortions, etc..... then they should also be responsible for this, not the donor who agreed to remain anonymous and signed a binding contract ensuring this.

It's not like Donors benefit from donation or get any sort of profit from donating.

So you think a child conceived through a donor deserves less knowledge of his ancestry than a normally produced child?
 

Kreskin

Doctor of Thinkology
Feb 23, 2006
21,155
149
63
Without knowing all the details, these were Provincial laws governed by the Provincial Adoption Act, where all laws are made in the best interest of the children. The existing law granted authority to destroy records of biological parents, which the court ruled wasn't in the interest of the child. I presume it enforces an injunction of record destruction and prohibits future anonymous donation.
 

talloola

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 14, 2006
19,576
113
63
Vancouver Island
Best news today............every person deserves (and sometimes needs) to know his/her ancestry for ethnic and medical reasons.

I totally agree, it is criminal 'not' to allow a person to know who his/her mother and father are/were.

If I found out that my father was an american sperm donor, will I have duel citizenship? lol well,
just think about it. lol