This paper analyses the complex issues faced by regulators of the infertility treatment industry in response to the social and technological changes that heralded a new openness in knowledge about genetics, paternity and the concomitant need for donor offspring to know their genetic origins. The imperative for full information about their donor and biological father, who contributed to their creation and half of their genome, was an outcome unanticipated by the architects of the donor insemination programme. Genetic paternity testing realised (...) the possibility of fixed and certain knowledge about paternity. This paper outlines medicine's role in the formation of normative families through the use of donor insemination. Extending information from an Australian study on the use of DNA paternity testing, it analyses what the social and scientific changes that have emerged and gained currency in the last several decades mean for the new ‘openness’ and the role of paternity testing in this context. It concludes with recommendations about how to deal with the verification of paternity in linking donor conceived adult children to their donor. (shrink)

ABSTRACTIn 1994, the Committee on Assessing Genetic Risks of the Institute of Medicine published their recommendations regarding the ethical issues raised by advances in genetics. One of the Committee's recommendation was to inform women when test results revealed misattributed paternity, but not to disclose this information to the women's partners. The Committee's reason for withholding such information was that “'genetic testing should not be used in ways that disrupt families”. In this paper, I argue that the Committee's conclusion in favour (...) of nondisclosure to the male partner is unethical. I argue that both parties ought to be informed. (shrink)

In 1994, the Committee on Assessing Genetic Risks of the Institute of Medicine published their recommendations regarding the ethical issues raised by advances in genetics. One of the Committee's recommendation was to inform women when test results revealed misattributed paternity, but not to disclose this information to the women's partners. The Committee's reason for withholding such information was that “'genetic testing should not be used in ways that disrupt families”. In this paper, I argue that the Committee's conclusion in favour (...) of nondisclosure to the male partner is unethical. I argue that both parties ought to be informed. (shrink)

Effective July 22, 2011, a new law in the state of Washington requires any donor of sperm or eggs to provide a medical history and identifying information to fertility clinics. It also allows donor‐conceived individuals to request this information from clinics once they reach the age of eighteen. This is a significant legislative milestone and a promising development in a country that has consistently shied away from regulating the infertility industry in any way. What do we as a society owe (...) donor‐conceived individuals in terms of obtaining access to information about their genetic origins? This essay addresses just one of this set of issues: the regulatory changes required to address the medical interests of donor‐conceived individuals, regardless of whether a human right to know one's genetic origins is acknowledged. (shrink)

This article explores how the Portuguese legal system’s efforts to determine paternity of children born outside legal marriage, automatically initiated by the Registry Office when a birth registration does not indicate the father, reveal cultural models which reinforce the naturalisation of the differences between mothers and fathers, with significant effects on the social construction of parental roles and on expectations of family organisation and female sexual behaviour. The article relies on ethnographic data drawn from direct observation of court proceedings for (...) the determination of paternity, as well as interviews with judges and prosecuting counsels all over the country. It is argued that judicial practices in the specific context of courtroom investigations of paternity reinforce gender inequalities in two interrelated ways. On the one hand, they are strengthened in the discursive practices performed during the course of the interactions between judges, prosecuting counsels and the mother of the child, as well as the alleged father. On the other hand, the normative model of family life and the dominant ideology of women’s and men’s relationships, which emphasise women’s socially subordinate position, are revealed by the selective use of DNA testing in paternity cases, based on the judge’s evaluation of the mother’s sexual behaviour. The article argues that legal attempts to establish the paternity of children born outside marriage—though based on novel technical and supposedly objective procedures—tend, nevertheless, to reproduce the prevailing patriarchal structures. (shrink)

The issue of genetic inheritance, and particularly the contradictory rights of donors, recipients and donor offspring as to the disclosure of donor identities, is ethically complicated. Donors, donor offspring and parents of donor offspring may appeal to individual rights for confidentiality or disclosure within legal systems based on liberal rights discourse. This paper explores the ethical issues of non-disclosure of genetic inheritance by contrasting two principle models used to articulate the problem—liberal and communitarian ethical models. It argues that whilst the (...) latter provides a more constructive avenue to providing an ethics for donation than the competing and contradictory positions represented in a liberal rights approach, it raises issues of ethical judgement and authority that remain problematic. This ethical discussion is supported by a field study, funded by the Wellcome Trust, exploring the perceptions and experiences of recipients of donor sperm and their partners towards donor anonymity. The field study provides the empirical basis of an argument for making ethical judgements on the grounds of the community good rather than individual rights, that nevertheless recognises that both are inherently problematic. (shrink)

The use of rights based arguments to justify claims that donor offspring should have access to information identifying their gamete donor has become increasingly widespread. In this paper, I do not intend to revisit the debate about the validity of such rights. Rather, the purpose is to examine the way that such alleged rights have been implemented by those legislatures that have allowed access to identifying information. I will argue that serious inconsistencies exist between the claim that donor offspring have (...) a right to know the identity of their gamete donor and the way such a right is currently met in practice. I hope to show that in systems where non‐anonymous donation is practised, an understanding of the proclaimed right of donor offspring to know their genetic identity is one composed of two different rights – the right to know the circumstances of their conception and the right to information identifying the gamete donor – can provide important insights into this important area of public policy. (shrink)