Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Why There is No Right to Know One’s Genetic Origins

  • Chapter
Philosophical Reflections on Medical Ethics

Abstract

In June 2004, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 was modified to lift gamete donor anonymity from April 2005. This change also includes embryo donation and egg-share arrangements. The UK is not the only country to remove donor anonymity. Sweden changed its law in 1985, Austria and New Zealand in 1992, Victoria (Australia) in 1995 and The Netherlands in 20001. Pressure for change seems to come from several quarters. Family law in the UK, even prior to the introduction of the Human Rights Act 1998, had been moving towards the view that children’s welfare interests include knowledge of their genetic origins (Wallbank 2004). The announcement by the Department of Health Minister Melanie Johnson, reinforces this notion and suggests others:

Donor-conceived people have a right to information about their genetic origins that is currently denied them, including the identity of their donor … donor people should not be treated so differently from adopted people … The interests of the child are paramount. We live in an age where … our genetic background will become increasingly important … information about their genetic origins … is rightly theirs.2

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. See L. Frith (2001) ‘Ethical and Legal Debate’, Human Reproduction 16(5), pp. 818–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. For example, D. Benatar (1999) ‘The Unbearable Lightness of Bringing into Being’, Journal of Applied Philosophy 16, pp. 173–80

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. J. L. Nelson (1991) ‘Parental Responsibilities and the Ethics of Surrogacy: a Causal Perspective’, Public Affairs Quarterly, 5, pp. 49–61.

    Google Scholar 

  4. For example, T. Bayne (2003) ‘Gamete Donation and Parental Responsibility’, Journal of Applied Philosophy, 20, pp. 77–87 G. Fuscaldo (forthcoming) ‘Genetic Ties: Are They Morally Binding?’, Bioethics; H. Draper (submitted) ‘Fatherhood, Responsibility and Genetics: Disentangling Genetic Relatedness and Paternal Responsibility’, Journal of Medical Ethics.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. A. McWinnie (2001) ‘Gamete Donation and Anonymity’, Human Reproduction 16(5), pp. 807–17.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Lalos et al. (2003) ‘Recruitment and Motivation of Semen Providers in Sweden’, Human Reproduction 18: 212–16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. E. Blyth (2002) ‘Information on Genetic Origins in Donor-assisted Conception: Is Knowing Who You Are a Human Rights Issue?’ Human Fertility, 5, pp. 185–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. J. Robinson et al. (1991) ‘Attitudes of Donors and Recipients to Gamete Donation’, Human Reproduction, 6, pp. 307–9

    Google Scholar 

  9. C. Gottlieb et al. (2000) ‘Disclosure of DI to the Child’, Human Reproduction, 15, pp. 2052–6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. S. Klock et al. (1996) ‘A Comparison of Single and Married Recipients of DI’, Human Reproduction, 11, pp. 2554–7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. R. Cook, S. Golombok, A. Bish and C. Murray (1995) ‘Keeping Secrets: A Controlled Study of Parental Attitudes towards Telling about Donor Insemination’, American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 65, pp. 549–59

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. A. Brewaeys et al. (1993) ‘Children from Anonymous Donors: An Inquiry into Heterosexual and Homosexual Parents’ Attitudes’, Journal of Psychosomatic. Obstetrics. & Gynaecology, 14, pp. 23–35

    Google Scholar 

  13. A. Brewaeys et al. (1997) ‘DI: Child Development and Family Functioning in Lesbian Mother Families’, Human Reproduction, 12, pp. 1349–59

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. V. Soderstorm-Antilla et al. (1998) ‘Embryo Donation: Outcome and Attitudes among Embryo Donors and Recipients’, Human Reproduction, 16, pp. 1120–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. A. Clamar (1989) ‘Psychological Implications of the Anonymous Pregnancy’, in J. Offerman-Zuckerberg (ed.), Families in Transition: A New Frontier (New York: Plenum Press), pp. 111–20

    Google Scholar 

  16. R. Snowden, (1993) ‘Sharing Information about DI in the UK’, Politics and the Life Sciences, 12, pp. 194–5

    Google Scholar 

  17. K. Daniels and K. Taylor (1993) ‘Secrecy and Openness in Donor Insemination’, Politics and the Life Sciences, 12, pp. 155–70

    Google Scholar 

  18. Donor Conception Support Group of Australia Inc. (1997) Let the Offspring Speak: Discussions on Donor Conception (Georges Hall, NSW: Donor Conception Support Group).

    Google Scholar 

  19. C. Turner (1993) ‘A Call for Openness in Donor Insemination’, Politics and the Life Sciences, 12, pp. 197–9

    Google Scholar 

  20. S. Golombok (1998) ‘New Families, Old Values: Considerations Regarding the Welfare of the Child’, Human Reproduction, 13, pp. 2342–7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. K. Vanfraussen, I. Ponjaert-Kristoffersen, and A. Brewaeys (2001) ‘An Attempt to Reconstruct Children’s Donor Concept: a Comparison between Children’s and Lesbian Parents’ Attitudes towards Donor Anonymity’, Human Reproduction, 16, pp. 2019–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. L. Frith (2001) ‘Beneath the Rhetoric: the Role of Rights in the Practice of non-Anonymous Gamete Donation’, Bioethics, 15(5), pp. 473–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. K. O’Donovan (1991) ‘“What shall we tell the children?” Reflections on Children’s Perspectives and the Reproductive Revolution’, in R. L. Lee and D. Morgan (eds.), Birthrights: Law and Ethics at the Beginnings of Life (London: Routledge), pp. 96–114.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Only 46 gave locating a genetic parent or relative as the primary reason. O’Donovan, citing C. Day (1979) ‘Access to Birth Records’, Adoption and Fostering, 3(4), p. 17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. D. Thowe and J. Feast (2000) Adoption, Search and Reunion: the Long-term Experience of Adopted Adults (London: The Children’s Society).

    Google Scholar 

  26. For an introduction to duty of rescue, see T. Beauchamp and J. Childress (1994) Principles of Biomedical Ethics (Oxford: Oxford University Press), pp. 266–8.

    Google Scholar 

  27. We should be arguably less concerned about information per se about us being in the public domain when the information about us is stripped of anything that could lead us to be identified. The distinction between anonymous and identifiable participants is, for instance, is used to support epidemiological research and is an interpretation that seems to be supported by the Data Protection Act 1998. See also W. Rogers and H. Draper (2003) ‘The Ethics of Confidentiality in Medical Ethics’, Journal of Medical Ethics, 29, pp. 220–4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. H. Draper and W. Rogers (2005) ‘Re-evaluating Confidentiality: Using Patient Information in Teaching and Publications’, Advances in Psychiatric Treatment 11: 115–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. Heather Draper
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for Professional Ethics, Keele University, UK

    Nafsika Athanassoulis (Lecturer in Ethics) (Lecturer in Ethics)

Copyright information

© 2005 Heather Draper

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Draper, H. (2005). Why There is No Right to Know One’s Genetic Origins. In: Athanassoulis, N. (eds) Philosophical Reflections on Medical Ethics. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230273931_4

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation