Friday, June 27, 2008
More Controversy Over Britain's Donor Anonymity Law
The number of treatments with donor sperm has dropped to record lows since Britain banned donor anonymity in 2005, reports the London Daily Mail:
The first official figures since the Government removed anonymity from donors in 2005 show that the number of women treated with donated sperm fell by about 20 per cent from 2,727 in 2005 to 2,107 in 2006.
The number of donor insemination treatment cycles fell by 30 per cent over the same period.
The amount of women offering to donate eggs has also shrunk dramatically.
The article also provides some helpful data on the surpising (albeit small) increase in the number of donors after the 2005 law took effect. The government and donor-conceived activists had pointed to the rise as evidence that anonymity would not hurt the industry. But, it turns out, most of those new donors are 'known donors,' who are looking only to help a friend or relative:
The figures show that the number of sperm donors rose slightly from 259 in 2005 to 307 in 2006.
But that rise is largely down to an increase in the numbers of 'known donors' - friends and relatives that donate for a couple's exclusive use.
Fewer donors are contributing to sperm banks, from which the donation can be used by up to ten women.
That means that although more donors have registered, the shortage of sperm is becoming more acute.
Ten years ago there were no waiting lists for sperm, but now most clinics have a wait of at least two years for sperm treatment, and a similar trend is affecting egg donation.
A year after the law changed on anonymity, two thirds of clinics said their waiting times for sperm treatment had lengthened.
As a result, many more couples are looking abroad for donor sperm. Naomi Anderson, a fertility patient in the U.K., turned to online purveyors in the U.S. after learning about the 1-2 year wait for a donor:
I found two reputable American sites, xytex.com, and fairfaxcryobank.com, and selected a couple of possible donors. But legislation that came into force at the end of January 2007 means that UK women – despite our national sperm drought – now find it almost impossible to import sperm. A licence must be sought from the HFEA, which among other conditions stipulates that the donor must "only [have] received reasonable expenses or reimbursement for loss of earnings'. This is often not the case with the most high profile foreign clinics. You must also argue convincingly why you believe your child should be fathered by someone from that country.
The first time round the application submitted by my clinic was turned down by the HFEA. But an appeal, in which I stressed my husband's North American background, was successful. Those, however, who have no connection with any other country, are caught in what seems to be a tussle between different people's rights.