GESTIÓN EN SALUD PÚBLICA: BioEdge: Is unmasking IVF donors immoral?

domingo, 26 de mayo de 2019

BioEdge: Is unmasking IVF donors immoral?

BioEdge: Is unmasking IVF donors immoral?

Bioedge

Is unmasking IVF donors immoral?

by Michael Cook | 26 May 2019 |

The successes of donor-conceived children who have used the internet to find parents and siblings with the help of DNA testing sites are normally framed as ethical victories. But according to Belgian bioethicist Guido Pennings, of Ghent University, they lack informed consent and are deeply unethical.

Most people who use the sites like ancestry.com or 23andme.com are creating genealogies. But searching for concealed genetic links is far more involved, from an ethical point of view. Writing in BioNews, Dr Pennings argues:

Searching for donors through genetic databases unilaterally revises the agreement with the donors who had been promised anonymity. It is a clear breach of the right to privacy of the donor, which may have serious consequences for them and their family.
In addition, it violates the rights of people whose genetic information is used for purposes not intended by them. For instance, someone may undergo genetic testing to find health-related information but their DNA is later used to trace family members for forensic purposes. In the same vein, people who registered in a database will not have intended that a family member be exposed as a gamete donor.

Donor-conceived children can be harmed when a sibling reaches out after discovering their family relationship. They may not know the facts of their origin and the revelation could lead to great psychological distress.

... donor offspring looking for their donor or siblings ... demonstrate a complete disregard for the possible impact of their search on other people. They know that they may cause serious personal and familial problems for others but they believe their personal interests prevail. ... the violation of their presumed right to know their genetic parents does not justify them violating the rights of others.

In an article in the current issue of Human Reproduction, Dr Pennings ruefully admits that the horse has bolted. The incidence of identifying donors will certainly increase as the technology improves. “Clinics and doctors can only promise not to reveal the donor’s identity but can no longer guarantee anonymity as such.”

Michael Cook is editor of MercatorNet

We cover a wide range of issues in this newsletter, ranging from whether brain-damaged Frenchman Vincent Lambert should be allowed to die to whether IVF affects human evolution.

But today I’ll address a nuts-and-bolts issue– how to make comments. We’d like to encourage debate and fresh ideas in the comment box below each article. However we realise that it is a bit clumsy and hard to use.

There are no perfect commenting systems. We use third-party software called Disqus. It works well and allows us to moderate comments. But the best way to make a Disqus comment is to sign up for Disqus. It’s easy and quick.

Unfortunately – and understandably – many of our readers are reluctant to sign up for one more social media system. The solution is to post as a “guest”. But Disqus makes this a bit difficult.

So here’s how to do it. Type your name (or pseudonym) into the “name” box. Then two more boxes appear. Type in your email AND tick the box “I’d rather post as a guest”.

Voilà! You’re all set. Write your comment (be sensible and polite) and click the arrow button.