Why are black sperm donors so scarce?
by Michael Cook | 29 Aug 2020 |
A recent issue of the HuffPost UK has a fascinating intersectional analysis of the market for sperm. Susan Kamau, who is a British woman of colour, writes about her search for a black sperm donor. When she trawled through the profiles of donors on a site which claimed to be the UK’s “largest provider of donor sperm”, she drew a blank.
She discovered that there were far more black sperm donors in Denmark – but it was far too expensive there.
She ended up resorting to Facebook. There she discovered a group of black donors. Comments posted by their clients were useful in winnowing out the duds. However, as she acknowledges, this is still risky. The sperm could be infected and could carry genetic defects. It’s difficult to get a psychological profile of the donor and there could be legal battles afterwards. She complains:
The population of the UK is 13 times bigger than Denmark (67 million versus five million) and the proportion of immigrants is similar (8% and 10% respectively), but there has been little research done to understand why there are so few Black donors in the UK, compared to Denmark, and what can be done to motivate men to donate their sperm.
This lack of research continues to expose women, particularly Black women and their children, to unnecessary risks. Nor can we continue to rely on Denmark for Black donors when it’s unclear how Brexit will affect customs and trade. A homegrown solution is required now, more than ever.
Otherwise, as the headline above her narrative declares, “A Shortage Of Black Sperm Donors [will be] Putting Black Women At Risk”.
Michael Cook is editor of BioEdge
Like the Democratic candidate, Joe Biden, Republican President Donald Trump touched upon a number of bioethical issues when he accepted his nomination this week.
I found it surprising that Trump devoted so much time to broadcasting his anti-abortion, pro-life message. It's not surprising -- his Administration has worked against Planned Parenthood and backed nominees to the Supreme Court who appeared to be anti-abortion.
But Trump did so boldly and without equivocation when he could have just settled for some boilerplate, His team must have calculated that it is an election-winning issue, no matter how polarising it appears to be. Is this a sign that public opinion is changing on this key bioethical issue?
Michael Cook
Editor
I found it surprising that Trump devoted so much time to broadcasting his anti-abortion, pro-life message. It's not surprising -- his Administration has worked against Planned Parenthood and backed nominees to the Supreme Court who appeared to be anti-abortion.
But Trump did so boldly and without equivocation when he could have just settled for some boilerplate, His team must have calculated that it is an election-winning issue, no matter how polarising it appears to be. Is this a sign that public opinion is changing on this key bioethical issue?
Michael Cook
Editor
NEWS THIS WEEK
by Michael Cook | Aug 29, 2020
Takes a strong stand against abortion and lockdownsby Michael Cook | Aug 29, 2020
Bert Keizer says that expanding the criteria for euthanasia eligibility is the path of progressby Michael Cook | Aug 29, 2020
Mother fights to use frozen sperm to create a grandchildby Michael Cook | Aug 29, 2020
Anti-lockdown protests, however, are not justifiableby Michael Cook | Aug 29, 2020
Staff claim that some hospitals had a “no admissions” policy– even for conditions such as heart attacksby Michael Cook | Aug 29, 2020
A fascinating intersectional analysis of the UK’s shortageby Michael Cook | Aug 29, 2020
Theodore Dalrymple wields his scalpel in a new bookIN DEPTH THIS WEEK
by Alexandra Minna Stern | Aug 29, 2020
More than 60,000 people were sterilized in 32 states during the 20th century based on the bogus “science” of eugenicsBioEdge
L1, Unit 7, 11 Lord Street · Botany, NSW 2019 · Australia
Phone: +61 2 8005 8605
Mobile: 0422-691-615
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario