IS THE USE OF THIRD-PARTY GAMETES AN EXERCISE IN PARADOXICAL THINKING?: Julie Shapiro

blogs:

...For a long time I’ve been dimly aware of a possible paradox that lies at the heart of a lot of use of third-party gametes. I think it’s time to focus on it a bit.

Here is what strikes me. Most people who use third-party gametes use either sperm or eggs and then combine it with their own complementary product. What I mean is that a single woman, a lesbian couple or a heterosexual couple with male infertility issues will use third-party sperm but an egg from the woman (or one of the women) who will be the planned mother. Where the person or people planning to be parents lack an egg (for a variety of reasons) they will use an egg from a third-party but their own sperm. Using third-party sperm and a third-party egg is pretty unusual.

Now for some people what is controversial about using third-party gametes is that by design you separate the child from the genetic parent. In order to justify doing this, I think you rather have to say that it’s not a terrible thing to do. I mean, if you think separating a child from its genetic parent is a terrible thing to do then it is very hard to justify. But if you don’t think it is that big a deal (and I’m in that camp—remember) then it is easier to justify.

So I will assume that a user of third-party gametes has decided that the whole genetic link thing is not a big deal. But at the same time they are choosing ART over adoption, perhaps precisely because it allows them to use their own gametes (at least in part). So it seems that their choice to use ART rather than adoption might well be grounded (at least in part) on the idea that the genetic link is important.

Can you have it both ways? I suppose it is possible. One might say that while the genetic link isn’t crucial to the child it will make it easier for an intended parent to bond with the child. But if you are planning to parent as part of a couple, this seems a disastrous approach–because by definition one of you will have the genetic link and one of you will not and that difference will matter to you.

Mostly I think this looks like inconsistent thinking and I’m really not sure you can have it both ways.

more

Labels: biological parenthood, children, culture, donor conception, Julie Shapiro, parenting

posted by Eve at 11:38 AM VOTE

CAN THERE REALLY BE A UK DONOR SPERM SHORTAGE IF THERE ARE MORE DONORS?: Julie Shapiro

blogs:
If you look back over the past several years you’ll find some posts about a reported shortage of sperm donors in the UK. These were generated after I read repeated news stories about this problem. (I linked to some of those stories in my 2010 post.)

Now the popular explanation for the sperm shortage was that in 2006 UK law changed and essentially abolished anonymous sperm donation. The identity of sperm donors is now to be made available to any children born via that donation when the children turn 18. The story you’ll find consistently in the media is that the loss of anonymity caused the sperm donor shortage.

But that’s just not the case–though somehow this doesn’t seem to be news. ...

But it most assuredly means that it is simply wrong to say that the shift to anonymous donors has caused a sperm shortage. That’s just fiction. I rather hope it is old fiction–I haven’t seen one of those stories in a little while–are they still making the rounds?

I think statistics are always tricky and generally caution is warranted. There’s correlation and then there is causation. Everything I’ve said here is about the former and I’m just speculating about the latter. But looks to me like there are more sperm donors in the UK today than there have ever been before which means the question I’d like to see discussed is why the number of sperm donors is rising. There’s a brief discussion of some possible reasons on the earlier post I started by linking to and maybe I’ll come back and develop that some more here.

In the meantime, note that the money paid to UK donors is going to rise this year as part of an effort to address that sperm shortage.
more

Labels: donor conception, Julie Shapiro, United Kingdom

posted by Eve at 9:38 PM VOTE

GLOBALIZATION AND SURROGACY AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR ADOPTION: Julie Shapiro

blogs:

A couple of years ago (hard to believe I’ve been doing this that long) I wrote about disturbing allegations of children being stolen from their families in Guatemala and then placed for adoption (as though they were orphans) with families in the United States. This post from RH Reality Check continues the story. While it suggests that progress has been made in controlling the profit-driven adoption market, it also notes the emergence of paid surrogacy as a substitute for intercountry adoption. It certainly gives one pause.

One one level, it’s obvious that surrogacy can be a substitute for adoption. If you want a child, those are two different ways you might obtain one. While there are substantial differences (for instance, in surrogacy the child is created for you while in adoption the child already exists), I would expect that many couples and individuals seeking children have considered both and then, for one reason or another, made their choice.

But this story suggests a different sort of substitution and thereby casts things in a different light. To begin with, it seems fairly clear that there is a demand for children within affluent sectors of the US (and for all I know other countries, too). One way to meet this demand is via international adoption.

I’m not by any means opposed to international adoptions in general, but it is clear that there is a potential for exploitation in practice. That’s part of the rational for the Hague Convention on Intercountry Adoption. It’s possible that unwitting US parents may well have adopted children who had been taken from (or purchased from) their Guatemalan parents.

I’m glad to hear that this problem may have been addressed. But that doesn’t make the demand for children go away. And as I said above, surrogacy might be seen as a substitute for adoption.

But surrogacy can be quite expensive, particularly in the US. We’ve all seen the stories about globalized surrogacy and reproductive tourism. There are cheaper places to go than California, India being the one that has gotten quite a bit of publicity. This leads me to have serious concerns about a race-to-the-bottom: What country will provide the most poorly compensated, least protected surrogates?

more

Labels: adoption, Central America, economics, Guatemala, Julie Shapiro, poverty, surrogate motherhood

posted by Eve at 7:28 PM VOTE

ADOPTIVE PARENTS AND THE GENETIC LINK: Julie Shapiro

on a recent study:

... I read a paper the other day which makes an interesting contribution here. It’s from the American Sociological Review, February 2007 and is by Laura Hamilton, Simon Cheng Brian Powell. (I’ve linked you to the table of contents the article is not on-line. If anyone wants a copy, you can e-mail me.)

The authors wanted to examine the importance of biological ties for parental investment. They begin by offering several different theoretical approaches and consider what outcomes might be expected under each of these theories. Among those considered are those grounded in evolutionary theory, some of which suggest that people are more likely to promote the well-being of genetic kin than of non-genetic kin.

It’s hard to measure commitment of parents to their children directly–what is the unit of commitment? So the authors concentrate on indicators of parental investment. They look at four types of parent resources–economic, cultural, interactional and social capital. And they look at families with two biologically related parents, two adoptive parents, and various single-parent and step-parent families. (The latter are sometimes referred to as ”alternative families.) Perhaps most importantly, they control for factors like wealth of the family. (This is critical because adoptive families tend to be higher income families, and so if you didn’t control for this, the fact that they spend more money on kids won’t tell you much.)

The authors find that adoptive families show as much and sometimes greater levels of investment in their kids than do the two genetically-related parent families. I am not going to say that this makes them better families (although do recall that the investments measured are not merely financial ones) but it certainly undermines the contention that in the absence of biological ties, parents invest less in their kids.

It is possible that this investment by adoptive families is the result of efforts to compensate for a social context that favors parents who are biologically related. In other words, it’s precisely because people think biologically related parents are better that adoptive parents put in extra effort. That might have interesting implications which I don’t think are discussed in this study.

more

Labels: adoption, Julie Shapiro, parenting

posted by Eve at 7:56 PM VOTE

NEWS FROM AUSTRALIA: HOW MANY PARENTS AND WHY?: Julie Shapiro

blogs:

I’ve been mulling over a recent news story from Australia that someone sent to me. It’s a rather complicated tale.

Ms. Fabian and Ms. Halifax (they only give last names in the story) were in a relationship for about seven years. During that time, each of them gave birth to a child. Ms. Halifax used sperm from a family friend, identified as Mr. Dalton. That child is now seven. Ms. Fabian used sperm from an anonymous donor. That child, a girl, is the subject of the litigation. She is now three.

The two women separated when the daughter was 20 months old. At the time they lived in Queensland, but at least Ms. Fabian, and perhaps both, were from New South Wales. Ms. Fabian now wants to return to New South Wales.

Her request to move is being opposed not only by her former partner, Ms. Halifax, but also by a gay male couple. According to the newspaper story, this couple “cannot be named,” but one of them is apparently the donor for the other child, which would mean he is Mr. Dalton. An Australian court has determined that she should not move while the requests of the various parties are considered. ...

I cannot help but contrast this with the evidence women asserting claims to be de facto parents produce. You can find at least half-a-dozen cases that I’ve discussed on the blog–some where the women won and some where the women lost. But win or lose, the evidence offered by the women I’m thinking of is qualitatively different. It’s far more about the hands-on care offered than about the public acknowledgement.

In truth, it seems to me that the men are claiming rights on a basis akin to holding out. Perhaps that is not so surprising. If you go back and read that earlier post (and the ones that follow) you will see this is a historically male path to parenthood. It makes me wonder if this legacy of gendered family law will find its way into the legal regulation of decidedly modern families.

more

Labels: Australia, de facto parenting, Fathers, gender, gender differences, Julie Shapiro, motherhood

posted by Eve at 3:45 PM VOTE

IS THERE A HIERARCHY OF PARENTHOOD?: Julie Shapiro

blogs:

...There are a number of different tests you might use to determine who the parents of a child are. Each has strengths and weaknesses, which are discussed elsewhere on the blog. Part of the challenge is that the question arises in so many different situations. ART in particular gives us a whole range of new complications, but there are plenty even without that. ...

Now if you go back over the blog, I think you’ll find instances in which every one of these tests has been deployed. And of course, you can mix and match them. Some people have multiple factors going for them–they intend to have children, they are genetically related to children they give birth to and they act as the children’s parents. Those tend to be easy cases.

The hard cases come when you have competing contestants, or where one person wants to cut another out, as in the new Montana case. One person claims one basis for parenthood, and someone else claims a different one. Or there are cases when no one wants to claim parenthood and we need to find someone. (Not long ago I wrote about a case where a man who had functioned as a father for 13 years sought to sever his relationship with the child by asserting that it turned out he lacked the genetic connection something he apparently knew all along, but never mind that.) How to decide these?

Cases like this seem to me to suggest we have some sort of hierarchy. So, for example, to reach the result the court did in the case I just mentioned (he’s still the father) it had to say that function (and the relationships constructed based on that function) trump biology (by which test he was not the father.) Again, you can look back and find many instances in which one test seems to overcome another.

And I guess this is my present question. Is there some hierarchy and if so, what is it? Actually, I suppose I really mean should there be a hierarchy and if so, what should it be? After all, I’m more concerned with what the law ought to be than with what it is in any particular place (it varies so very widely.)

more

Labels: adoption, Artificial Reproductive Technology, de facto parenting, donor conception, Julie Shapiro, parenting

posted by Eve at 4:41 PM VOTE