UNITED STATES: The Ethicist--Seminal Revelation, December 30, 2008

Our Baster Nation comrades are also denied the right of heritage and identity. I will include articles about their activities, too.

THE NEW YORK TIMES SUNDAY MAGAZINE
December 30, 2007

The Ethicist
Seminal Revelation
By RANDY COHEN

My fiancé received a letter at his office from a woman claiming to be the product of his sperm donation nearly 20 years ago. Her stated intention was to receive medical information, something he would willingly provide, but she strongly implied that she desired more, and he does not wish further contact. Was it ethical of her to obtain his name and business address? Must he reply? — name withheld, Portland, Ore.

Your fiancé is right to provide pertinent medical information to this young woman. The consequences to her of not having it could be dire. One way he might respond — while, quite reasonably, deterring further contact — is to have the clinic where he made his sperm donation give her only the medical information and nothing else. If the clinic is uncooperative or, after 20 years, no longer extant, he can proceed via some other middleman — a lawyer, for example.

There is nothing wrong with this woman’s contacting him or with her resourcefully tracking him down. She made no promise not to. It would, of course, be wrong for the clinic to assist her in that effort if it guaranteed your fiancé anonymity. Such promises can be an effective way to encourage sperm donors, who provide a service much valued both by couples having trouble conceiving and by single women eager to start a family.

While this woman may propose closer contact, your fiancé need not acquiesce. He, too, has a say in the matter. While parents have ethical obligations to their children, especially their young children, parenthood is not defined merely by a genetic connection.

UPDATE: The fiancé, now husband, instructed the clinic to provide the woman with medical information but to disclose nothing further about him. The clinic insisted that it had not given out his contact information. It warned him about the possibility of a nonrelative trying to scam a putative parent, a scheme it has encountered before.

Link to article