Sperm donor anonymity overturned by B.C. court

[PoliticalNick]

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.

I'm with Prax here, what does ethnicity have to do with it. And actually the mother can tell them because that is one of the things that is revealed about the donor already. Medical history means nothing unless you are talking about genetic disorder and that is screened prior to the donation being used.

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

You got a problem with life being unfair? No, you already stated you don't think everyone should have a living wage just the opportunity so you know life's not fair. If the kid, or you, have a problem with them not knowing their biological make-up blame the mother or couple that used anonymous sperm to bring them into the world. The individual right to privacy in an anonymous donation supercedes somebody's emotional need to know.

I have never considered being a donor and this ruling has ensured I never will. Try to be a help to those in society that can't conceive and 20 years later you have 6,8,12 kids or more knocking on your door. Not for me or most people.

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.

The adoption law in BC allows someone to petition the court for access to the information regarding their biological parents once they reach the age of majority, in other words once they are an adult. Just the fact that the "child" can't petition for the information until they are a legal adult makes the point about the interests of the child a joke. At 19 they are no longer a child. The law is a paradox, its about the child but not until they are an adult????

 

[Kreskin]

Just because someone turns 19 doesn't mean they aren't someone's child.

 

[JLM]

I'm with Prax here, what does ethnicity have to do with it. And actually the mother can tell them because that is one of the things that is revealed about the donor already. Medical history means nothing unless you are talking about genetic disorder and that is screened prior to the donation being used.


You got a problem with life being unfair? No, you already stated you don't think everyone should have a living wage just the opportunity so you know life's not fair. If the kid, or you, have a problem with them not knowing their biological make-up blame the mother or couple that used anonymous sperm to bring them into the world. The individual right to privacy in an anonymous donation supercedes somebody's emotional need to know.

I have never considered being a donor and this ruling has ensured I never will. Try to be a help to those in society that can't conceive and 20 years later you have 6,8,12 kids or more knocking on your door. Not for me or most people.


The adoption law in BC allows someone to petition the court for access to the information regarding their biological parents once they reach the age of majority, in other words once they are an adult. Just the fact that the "child" can't petition for the information until they are a legal adult makes the point about the interests of the child a joke. At 19 they are no longer a child. The law is a paradox, its about the child but not until they are an adult????

I say bullsh*t. Ethnicity is very important, there are many medical conditions that are more prominent among some races. Heart disease or the propensity for it runs in families, same with cancer. Sometimes human remains can only be identified through the D.N.A. of the next of kin. Nobody in this world should have material things handed to them but they should have the opportunity to work for them. You obviously have no problem with someone spending their entire life wondering where they came from.

 

[PoliticalNick]

Just because someone turns 19 doesn't mean they aren't someone's child.

Sure, so is a 50 year-old.

Now be real, when the law states "interests of the child' it is referring specifically to a minor. A child in the law is someone who has not reached the age of consent.

 

[JLM]

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

Glad to see a sensible poster on this thread. :lol:

 

[PoliticalNick]

I say bullsh*t. Ethnicity is very important, there are many medical conditions that are more prominent among some races. Heart disease or the propensity for it runs in families, same with cancer. Sometimes human remains can only be identified through the D.N.A. of the next of kin. Nobody in this world should have material things handed to them but they should have the opportunity to work for them. You obviously have no problem with someone spending their entire life wondering where they came from.

They came from the joining of an egg and a sperm and from a womans womb. I don't have a problem at all with them not knowing anything other than that. We are talking about donors here which means that at least one biological parent has raised them probably alongside someone the kid thought was their daddy for most of their lives.

I do however have a problem with people living in poverty and kids going hungry because their job doesn't pay enough or they lose their job through no fault of their own.

 

[Praxius]

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

In regards to knowledge of one's ancestry, regardless if it's someone adopted, came from sperm donation or from their natural parents, I don't see it being a "right" for anybody knowing that stuff, simply because it's not important to one's equal treatement in society or towards them being able to have a quality life.

For example, if I had a child of my own by natural means, and I decided not to tell my child anything about my family's history or past (hypothetically speaking here), should my child be able to sue my ass for not telling them?

No.

The situation would be no different then having a parent who never cared, let alone bothered to look up their own family history and their knowledge only going as far as to who their own parents were & where they came from..... and I know plenty of people who only know that much about their family history.

In relation to a sperm donor child (or even adopted children) the parents whom are rasing and loving them now should be good enough.... they have grand parents, cousins, uncles, aunts, etc..... they're the one's raising you, that's your family and that's your history.

Many of the people I know here at work in Australia, & others here don't know anything about their family's past..... they don't know coat of arms or family crests, most only assume where their family's last name came from, because as explained to me, it's simply not that important. The impression I get from them is that what's important now is their lives, their current families and how they live today..... not what some person did 150 years ago whom you never met.

Why some people need to be so hung up on family history and not be focused on starting your own history, I simply don't get.

None of it has any direct impact on the way you live your life now.

I say bullsh*t. Ethnicity is very important, there are many medical conditions that are more prominent among some races.

And I say bullsh*t to that, since those medical conditions are not that serious that every single person of that race needs to be screened right away. If you are worried about a health problem, regardless of your race or gender.... go get it checked.... it's that simple.

I'm Irish, Scottish & Native American..... mostly Irish. I'm not too good in the sun and I got a temper from time to time..... I don't need to know my family's history to know any of this, I can just look in the mirror or pay attention to my moods & habbits.

Heart disease or the propensity for it runs in families, same with cancer. Sometimes human remains can only be identified through the D.N.A. of the next of kin. Nobody in this world should have material things handed to them but they should have the opportunity to work for them. You obviously have no problem with someone spending their entire life wondering where they came from.

Hey for all I know, my parents lied to me and I was adopted.... your parents might have too, thus your family history could be all frabricated and have nothing to do with you. If I was adopted or not, I couldn't care less. If everybody stuck to their regular medical checkups and physicals like everybody is supposed to, any type of medical complication should be found and dealt with. You don't need family history for that.

In regards to medical history such as cancer, heart disease, etc..... as already mentioned before, that sort of stuff is already checked out before a donor's sperm is allowed to go to anybody, so that argument is baseless.

 

[talloola]

I think every human has every right to know his/her ancestry. I did lots of genealogy in the past, and
spent months and months digging and researching my past relatives.
That is my right, to know my history, and no one has the right to deny me that information.

And, if my natural parent did not want me to know anything, too bad, I will go over his/her head and
do my own research, as it is interesting and informative and opens doors to 'who' I really am, where I
came from, and introduces me to many others who are/were connected to me.
My parents are individuals, just like me, and we all have the right to our history, and who and where
we came from.


I just received an e mail from my second cousin in england, after about 5 years of research, and she, doing
the same, (we did not know anything of each others existence), she found my inquiry, and answered me,
we exchange e mails now, our grandmothers were sisters, she knew my grandmother for many years before
she died, and I have been filled in with information I did not think I would ever have.

When donors are giving their sperm, they should be open and honest and forthright, and allow all information
concerning them as individuals along with their parents, grandparents etc., and if they don't want to do
that, 'zip' it up. They should not be donating for money, but for the betterment of someone elses life, and
if that brings them some reimbursement, so be it.

 

[Praxius]

...... and if they don't want to do that, 'zip' it up. They should not be donating for money, but for the betterment of someone elses life, and if that brings them some reimbursement, so be it.

Once again, as a correction, in Canada, no donor earns any money from donating their sperm..... Nobody is allowed to be paid for their donation..... otherwise it won't be a donation would it?

In the US, last I heard, they do get paid.... but that doesn't occur in Canada.

If they did, then I'd expcet the donations to be a hell of a lot more then what they are now.

Added:

In regards to the "Rights" of knowing one's family's past.... as far as I'm aware, it's not a right. You doing your geneology is a hobby. I don't mean that in a bad way, as I've done a bit of it myself, my wife's father spent years doing it..... but it doesn't hold any major impact on one's quality of life or equality of life to another person.

 

[talloola]

Once again, as a correction, in Canada, no donor earns any money from donating their sperm..... Nobody is allowed to be paid for their donation..... otherwise it won't be a donation would it?

In the US, last I heard, they do get paid.... but that doesn't occur in Canada.

If they did, then I'd expcet the donations to be a hell of a lot more then what they are now.

good, i'm glad to know that.

 

[PoliticalNick]

I think every human has every right to know his/her ancestry. I did lots of genealogy in the past, and
spent months and months digging and researching my past relatives.
That is my right, to know my history, and no one has the right to deny me that information.

And, if my natural parent did not want me to know anything, too bad, I will go over his/her head and
do my own research, as it is interesting and informative and opens doors to 'who' I really am, where I
came from, and introduces me to many others who are/were connected to me.
My parents are individuals, just like me, and we all have the right to our history, and who and where
we came from.


I just received an e mail from my second cousin in england, after about 5 years of research, and she, doing
the same, (we did not know anything of each others existence), she found my inquiry, and answered me,
we exchange e mails now, our grandmothers were sisters, she knew my grandmother for many years before
she died, and I have been filled in with information I did not think I would ever have.

When donors are giving their sperm, they should be open and honest and forthright, and allow all information
concerning them as individuals along with their parents, grandparents etc., and if they don't want to do
that, 'zip' it up. They should not be donating for money, but for the betterment of someone elses life, and
if that brings them some reimbursement, so be it.

First, it is your right to know your history if it is available. You cannot compel someone to tell you who your great great aunt was if they don't want to. It may be nice information to have but there is no law I am aware of or anything in the constitution or charter of rights that makes it a requirement.

Second, they are called 'anonymous donors' because the intent is to prevent the donor from claiming biological rights over the parents and any other conflicts that may arise. Just like a lot of adoptions prevent the biological mother from contacting the child and trying to claim them from the adoptive parents.

Third, donors are not payed for the sperm in Canada, they are doing it to help couples who cannot conceive and therefore bettering someones life and allowing another life to be created. As has been mentioned earlier one donation could create dozens or even hundreds of children who could all then show up on the donors doorstep having a serious effect on his life. Why punish them this way 19 years later for doing a good deed.

Lastly, this judge is of her rocker in her ruling which clearly contradicts itself and has no foundation in the sources she claims to use as the basis. She states it is for the best interests of the child but the ruling only applies after they are an adult, contradictory if not pardoxicly insane. She classifies the current law protecting anonymity as unconstitutional yet the right to privacy is protected in the constitution whereas the right to know your biological parents is not.

 

[JLM]

They came from the joining of an egg and a sperm and from a womans womb. I don't have a problem at all with them not knowing anything other than that. We are talking about donors here which means that at least one biological parent has raised them probably alongside someone the kid thought was their daddy for most of their lives.

I do however have a problem with people living in poverty and kids going hungry because their job doesn't pay enough or they lose their job through no fault of their own.

Nobody in this world is "owed" a standard of living, Nick! A child is "owed" the necessities of life & should be afforded the opportunity to be all he/she can be.

 

[TenPenny]

Nobody in this world is "owed" a standard of living, Nick! A child is "owed" the necessities of life & should be afforded the opportunity to be all he/she can be.

Nobody is 'owed' the right to know their ancestry, either.

 

[JLM]

Nobody is 'owed' the right to know their ancestry, either.

Do you know yours?

 

[TenPenny]

Do you know yours?

Is that supposed to be an argument for something? I don't have have defined-benefit pension, but others do. Can I have one, just because others do?

Guess what? Neither of my kids knows their genetic history, or anything about their birth parents. And it's extremely unlikely that they ever could find out. And you know what? That's life. Stuff happens, and you have to deal with it. That's called life.

If you think this is a human rights abuse, do you have a contact at the UN that we should approach to file a human rights complaint?

 

[JLM]

Is that supposed to be an argument for something? I don't have have defined-benefit pension, but others do. Can I have one, just because others do?

Guess what? Neither of my kids knows their genetic history, or anything about their birth parents. And it's extremely unlikely that they ever could find out. And you know what? That's life. Stuff happens, and you have to deal with it. That's called life.

If you think this is a human rights abuse, do you have a contact at the UN that we should approach to file a human rights complaint?

Sure there'd be instances where it would be impossible, like with young survivors of an earthquake where there was no one left who could identify them, but in instances where there is someone living who does know their ancestry then out of common decency and to enhance their own well being they should know it...............if they want. Not necessarily the name but the ethnicity and the medical background.

 

[Kreskin]

PoliticalNick asked about the charter reference - The claim alleges a breach of the Charter right to equality (s. 15), and of rights to liberty and security of the person, guaranteed under Charter s. 7.

The court ruled 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.

In this particular case the claimant could not get access to information in part because the records were allegedly destroyed around the time of her birth. She could not get access no matter what the ruling but wanted future affected kids to be under the same rules as adopted children.

 

[JLM]

PoliticalNick asked about the charter reference - The claim alleges a breach of the Charter right to equality (s. 15), and of rights to liberty and security of the person, guaranteed under Charter s. 7.

The court ruled 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.

In this particular case the claimant could not get access to information in part because the records were allegedly destroyed around the time of her birth. She could not get access no matter what the ruling but wanted future affected kids to be under the same rules as adopted children.

And rightfully so, Kreskin. I've watched a man live a tormented life because he never found out who his father was because his mother (either out of guilt or out of meanness refused to tell him)

 

[Praxius]

Of course adopted children will be treated differently from sperm donor children.... the two situations are completely different and only linked by a few minor similarities.

The argument of equality of the two makes no sense and I still don't see any connection to any rights being violated.

There is no concern or attack on the individual's "Security" as they are just as secure as anybody else. So long as medical records and health details are provided from the donor, that is all that is required to cover whatever form of "Security" one is talking about. The Donor's identity is not required for this.

In regards to one's "Liberty", again, there is no compromise on the individual's freedom or liberty compared to anybody else. They are still free to do everything that everybody else is able to do, with exception to knowing the identity of their biological father, which is irrelevant because they already have parents who raised them and loved them, who provided them with a roof over their head & food in their belly...... a person's genetics doesn't make someone your father. Their love & care of you throughout your life is what makes someone your father or mother.

The claim "Alleges" this situation is a breach of the Charter.... yet I still haven't seen a valid explanation proving this.

Again, this case had no direct relation to her life or her situation since she can no longer get the identity of her father, and in past interviews and by her own admission, she no longer has any interest in finding out who her father was. She claims she did all of this for other "Children" in her situation, but why didn't she let those directly involved in this situation deal with this case and fight it themselves? The whole court case and arguments would have been more valid at least.

It reminds me of people trying to ban circumcisions and arguing that the child doesn't have a say when it's done to them. I'm perfectly fine with it being done to me when I was an infant, I don't remember it even being done, I have no long lasting side effects, my sex life is just fine and I don't hold it against my parents for making the decision, on the contrary, I'm glad they did.... and I sure as hell didn't ask these people to speak on my behalf and assume what I think of the situation. Ask the children or those people who were circumcised as children what they think.

Let's not forget that children in our societies don't have a say in a lot of things.... and many decisions are made either by their parents or by the state via laws until they're adults.

So if this was that big of a deal for these "Children" why didn't she step back, STFU and let them speak for themselves?

 

[talloola]

Lastly, this judge is of her rocker in her ruling which clearly contradicts itself and has no foundation in the sources she claims to use as the basis. She states it is for the best interests of the child but the ruling only applies after they are an adult, contradictory if not pardoxicly insane. She classifies the current law protecting anonymity as unconstitutional yet the right to privacy is protected in the constitution whereas the right to know your biological parents is not.

well, it seems she is bringing together the laws of the adopted child and the child of a donor, and in
reality it is the same.

there was a time when the birth parent had all the rights to say that he/she did not want the child to
know him/her, after adoption, now that is not so, and I agree with that law, same should be for donor parents, and
now that the law is different, the donor must agree with that law, or 'not' donate. In reality a donor
is allowing a person to have a child, who would not be able to, without him, and it is not a big secret,
and shouldn't have to be a big secret, the information, 'if wanted' should be available to the child, as
a person should be able to know his/her beginnings.
I do believe that the information doesn't have to be available till the child turns a 'certain' age, but
then the individual cannot be deprived of his/her individual information about his own life beginnings.

I like this law, and I am glad it was changed.