After discovering he has at least 17 kids, man sues fertility clinic(arstechnica.com)
arstechnica.com
After discovering he has at least 17 kids, man sues fertility clinic
https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/10/father-of-at-least-17-kids-sues-fertility-clinic-says-he-agreed-to-only-5/
137 comments
This reminded me of a recent story in The New York Times: "I'm 20. I Have 32 Half Siblings. This Is My Family Portrait"[1].
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/06/26/magazine/sper...
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/06/26/magazine/sper...
High numbers though. Do you know why they used ur biological father's sperm repeatedly? Not enough sperm donors or ... strong sperm (resulting in more viable IVFs?)
I was told that the mothers were able to choose from a catalog which donor they wanted to use-- they listed things like race, ethnicity, occupation, height weight etc. So I suppose that some donors were used more than others.
A lot of us siblings live in the same area so while its conceivable that inbreeding is an issue, it's probably like a 1 in a few million chance that you meet a sibling randomly.
A lot of us siblings live in the same area so while its conceivable that inbreeding is an issue, it's probably like a 1 in a few million chance that you meet a sibling randomly.
> There's at least 20 of us out there who are in contact with each other. It's really cool to have so many siblings, and I am very happy to be alive.
That's beautiful and I'm very happy for you and your siblings.
That's beautiful and I'm very happy for you and your siblings.
We're happy that you're alive too!
I'm so curious, what advice or insight would you have for parents or children whose conception was supported by a donor?
I'm so curious, what advice or insight would you have for parents or children whose conception was supported by a donor?
Woohoo :) My parents were instructed not to tell me. When I found out they told me not to tell anyone. I could've told my grandpa that I "wasn't his", but I didn't. He shortly died of an illness thereafter. So I think it wouldn't have been good timing.
I would say that it's important to not make it into a big deal. I think it's cool and I am grateful they spent the money and went through the extra pain of conceiving that way. There's no need for drama and tears :)
I would say that it's important to not make it into a big deal. I think it's cool and I am grateful they spent the money and went through the extra pain of conceiving that way. There's no need for drama and tears :)
Your half-siblings, do they look like you?
We all look like carbon copies of each other, it's incredible. Auburn hair, a ridge on the tip of our nose, thin eyebrows, olive skin. Regardless of our different mothers, it is unmistakeable that we are siblings. Really cool stuff!
If you've not seen this NYT Magazine feature, you'll probably enjoy it thoroughly:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/06/26/magazine/sper...
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/06/26/magazine/sper...
I will check it out, thanks!!
What do you think about this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_sexual_attraction ?
Did you notice that you were particularly attracted to any of your half-siblings?
Did you notice that you were particularly attracted to any of your half-siblings?
One of my siblings is extremely good looking, the rest are average in my opinion due to weight issues or some other non genetic thing. My opinion is also biased since I have a particular "type".
But I don't feel attracted to them, I mean, I only really feel attracted to someone based on their personality. And once I learn someone is my sibling, I think I'm influenced to not be attracted to them hahahaha
But I don't feel attracted to them, I mean, I only really feel attracted to someone based on their personality. And once I learn someone is my sibling, I think I'm influenced to not be attracted to them hahahaha
sounds awesome, you should dna-test everyone that looks like you
I find it interesting that people can even find this information out. It seems he found out from putting his DNA in but I hear other states allow that information to be accessed almost freely. It does make sense from a public health perspective (if everyone started using this service a lot in small communities). If this guy didn't put his agreement in writing then I don't know if there's anything he can really get out of it. Wouldn't it just be he-said/she-said? I didn't see any mention of a written contract.
Somewhat related: I was conceived in Germany in 1989. It's really unlikely that I'll ever find out any information about my biological father. Clinics there (until recently) only had to hold some info for 10 years. I don't think my parents even knew anything about the person - as when I came out... I looked nothing like my parents and I don't think they intended that. Brown eyes to their blue. Every facial feature completely different. Olive skin to their paleness. And this extended to the entire family - I always looked out of place. They didn't tell me until I was about 24. I wasn't shocked - clearly.
I've never done any DNA testing mostly because no one can place my race and I like the mystery! Sadly - I'm the perfect mix where most white people treat me like I'm brown and most brown people treat me like I'm white. Never got to fit in - lol. I still have a genuine curiosity but not knowing is all the more interesting. Your experience of race is mostly what people think you are anyway.
Somewhat related: I was conceived in Germany in 1989. It's really unlikely that I'll ever find out any information about my biological father. Clinics there (until recently) only had to hold some info for 10 years. I don't think my parents even knew anything about the person - as when I came out... I looked nothing like my parents and I don't think they intended that. Brown eyes to their blue. Every facial feature completely different. Olive skin to their paleness. And this extended to the entire family - I always looked out of place. They didn't tell me until I was about 24. I wasn't shocked - clearly.
I've never done any DNA testing mostly because no one can place my race and I like the mystery! Sadly - I'm the perfect mix where most white people treat me like I'm brown and most brown people treat me like I'm white. Never got to fit in - lol. I still have a genuine curiosity but not knowing is all the more interesting. Your experience of race is mostly what people think you are anyway.
> no one can place my race and I like the mystery!
I had a friend in Germany who had dark hair, dark eyes, and a complexion that always made it appear as if he had a real nice tan. His family and the people of the small community he originally came from were all similar as far back as anyone could trace.
Likely some inter-mixing or resettling of tribes a thousand or more years ago. They're as Bavarian / European as just about anyone, and probably you are, too.
I had a friend in Germany who had dark hair, dark eyes, and a complexion that always made it appear as if he had a real nice tan. His family and the people of the small community he originally came from were all similar as far back as anyone could trace.
Likely some inter-mixing or resettling of tribes a thousand or more years ago. They're as Bavarian / European as just about anyone, and probably you are, too.
Do you have any idea where these people are or names associated with them? I am very intrigued!
It would be awkward for me to reach out after many years to ask for more details about his genealogy on behalf of an Internet stranger.
I just happened to live there for a while and thought it worth pointing out that the people of Germany are more genetically diverse than the stereotypes. In retrospect, it was kinda shitty to do when you said you enjoyed the mystery. Please accept my sincerest apologies.
I just happened to live there for a while and thought it worth pointing out that the people of Germany are more genetically diverse than the stereotypes. In retrospect, it was kinda shitty to do when you said you enjoyed the mystery. Please accept my sincerest apologies.
The article says he found all these kids through Ancestry.com. Surely there must be many, many more whose DNA isn't in that database, no?
Morbidly fascinating, I would encourage everyone to check out this episode of the podcast Behind the Bastards: https://www.behindthebastards.com/podcasts/all-fertility-doc...
There are multiple fertility doctors who have used their own sperm to impregnate their patients. Sources are listed (in plain text--looks like they need to fix the HTML), but it was shocking to learn about. Here are a few of the references:
* https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/30/us/fertility-doctor-pregn...
* https://www.advisory.com/daily-briefing/2019/08/26/fertility...
* https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/9193014/British-man-fathere...
There are multiple fertility doctors who have used their own sperm to impregnate their patients. Sources are listed (in plain text--looks like they need to fix the HTML), but it was shocking to learn about. Here are a few of the references:
* https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/30/us/fertility-doctor-pregn...
* https://www.advisory.com/daily-briefing/2019/08/26/fertility...
* https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/9193014/British-man-fathere...
Prior to the ability to freeze sperm, the donor needed to be on-site at the time of fertilization. On top of that, the cultural shame around infertility issues meant that the mother didn't want too many details of the donor anyways. It's super-creepy through the lens of today, but only IMO less so (but still creepy) for the time in which it happens.
Surely there must be many, many more whose DNA isn't in that database, no?
Likely some, but I suspect the set of "sperm donor kids" has a pretty big overlap with "people interested in DNA relative matching."
Likely some, but I suspect the set of "sperm donor kids" has a pretty big overlap with "people interested in DNA relative matching."
Most (80%, nobody knows how many) "sperm donor kids" don't know they were conceived that way. It's often a family secret and many parents were advised by doctors never to tell.
I was one of them for 24+ years.
At least, for my experience, if you look significantly different from your family then you start to really question things and want to do DNA testing ASAP.
At least, for my experience, if you look significantly different from your family then you start to really question things and want to do DNA testing ASAP.
Honest Q: How does DNA testing tell you anything meaningful if you suspect a sperm donor conception? Presumably the donor was of the same race as your father.
Can't be guaranteed that the race is the same. I know that seems like some kind of "given" but it's clearly not in my case. I was born with brown eyes but both my parents had blue eyes.
I looked nothing like them or the extended family. While that happens for non-sperm donor kids - it's exceptionally rare that they look nothing like anyone from the extended family on both sides. In my case - I probably look a lot like my biological father's side.
In terms of what it tells you - it tells you what your potential ancestry could be. If you have parents who have no idea what they're ancestry is (mine don't) then you might have interest. Of course - once you do it... you're gonna find out you're a sperm donor child pretty fast.
I looked nothing like them or the extended family. While that happens for non-sperm donor kids - it's exceptionally rare that they look nothing like anyone from the extended family on both sides. In my case - I probably look a lot like my biological father's side.
In terms of what it tells you - it tells you what your potential ancestry could be. If you have parents who have no idea what they're ancestry is (mine don't) then you might have interest. Of course - once you do it... you're gonna find out you're a sperm donor child pretty fast.
It's not guaranteed the race of the donor is the same as the father, but it's most often going to be the case. The discordant eye colour is not as conclusive as some people think, though. In one study, about 10% of the children of blue eyed parents had brown eyes. The genetics of eye colour isn't as simple as most people think it is.
Of course, if you convince your parents to submit to a DNA test, then sure, the jig is up.
In my day job, I'm a geneticist, and have worked on population genetic typing. There is a fair amount of heterogeneity in any population, so it wouldn't surpise me to see unusual patterns in the data. There's also the fact that consumer DNA tests oversell the granularity that can be gleaned about ancestry.
Of course, if you convince your parents to submit to a DNA test, then sure, the jig is up.
In my day job, I'm a geneticist, and have worked on population genetic typing. There is a fair amount of heterogeneity in any population, so it wouldn't surpise me to see unusual patterns in the data. There's also the fact that consumer DNA tests oversell the granularity that can be gleaned about ancestry.
> many parents were advised by doctors never to tell.
It's a good thing we've cured all genetic diseases then.
It's a good thing we've cured all genetic diseases then.
Yes, that's why the article and the title say "at least"
It also highlights (once more) how scary Ancestry.com is.
Isn't this a non-scary consequence of Ancestry.com-like registries?
It's delivering a value people want – relative discovery – and uncovering malfeasance, and further may be helping to prevent undesirable incest.
That offsets these registries' other scary potential uses, like the risk of them being used to disadvantage certain genetic subgroups, or find wrongly-persecuted individuals.
I would agree that this highlights how scary gamete donation is, when handlers/recipients may not be trustworthy.
It's delivering a value people want – relative discovery – and uncovering malfeasance, and further may be helping to prevent undesirable incest.
That offsets these registries' other scary potential uses, like the risk of them being used to disadvantage certain genetic subgroups, or find wrongly-persecuted individuals.
I would agree that this highlights how scary gamete donation is, when handlers/recipients may not be trustworthy.
> Isn't this a non-scary consequence of Ancestry.com-like registries?
It's gonna be non-scary to some, scary to others.
Plenty of people donated sperm thinking they'd stay anonymous forever, back before the Human Genome Project was a $1B undertaking.
It's gonna be non-scary to some, scary to others.
Plenty of people donated sperm thinking they'd stay anonymous forever, back before the Human Genome Project was a $1B undertaking.
If you want to stay anonymous, perhaps they should not send their DNA to an Ancestry service?
Sure, but if a sibling or another direct parent does, your DNA can be inferred, or close enough to pinpoint you.
Not really.
If a sibling or parent sends DNA sample X, they do not know what your DNA is.
If someone also provides DNA sample Y, they can know that it is the DNA of a relative of X.
But...is that really worse than normal life? That's approximate not admissible in court. And DNA or not you can already figure out someone's associates a hundred different ways.
If a sibling or parent sends DNA sample X, they do not know what your DNA is.
If someone also provides DNA sample Y, they can know that it is the DNA of a relative of X.
But...is that really worse than normal life? That's approximate not admissible in court. And DNA or not you can already figure out someone's associates a hundred different ways.
The Golden State Killer was identified because of a DNA match to a distant relative on one of these sites: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/true-crime/wp/2018/04/27...
> But...is that really worse than normal life?
For an anonymous sperm donor, potentially from the other side of the country decades ago? Absolutely.
For an anonymous sperm donor, potentially from the other side of the country decades ago? Absolutely.
At the point you are donating...IDK all bets are off no?
> The two women said they were able to identify him with the help of Ancestry.com as well as “specific and substantive information” from the clinic, according to the lawsuit.
> The discovery prompted Dr. Cleary to send his DNA to Ancestry.com, which led him to uncover fifteen other children. Most of them live in Oregon and he has now met three of them. In the press conference, he noted that there may be even more children.
The children found him via Ancestry.com before he submitted his own DNA.
> The discovery prompted Dr. Cleary to send his DNA to Ancestry.com, which led him to uncover fifteen other children. Most of them live in Oregon and he has now met three of them. In the press conference, he noted that there may be even more children.
The children found him via Ancestry.com before he submitted his own DNA.
Read about how the Golden State Killer was found. Then review the rates of contamination and mishandling that occurs in DNA labs.
In what way is this scary?
Maybe you think it'd be fun to plug your info into Ancestry.com and see what they've got. You've got a decent life, you're living on a fixed income, but you're able to manage just fine. But you ping Ancestry, and they find you've got a gigantic family tree of relatives who you never knew about. Maybe you don't have any interest in meeting these people, but Ancestry.com sure sees some value in those connections. Maybe they strike a deal with an insurance data broker, and now this broker knows about your relatives as-well. Maybe you've got a genetic history of heart disease, a rare form of cancer, or some other medical condition which leaves you predisposed to being a high-risk candidate for some expensive medical bills in the next few years. So your insurance carrier drops you, or raises those rates to an exorbitant rate that you, on your fixed income, can no longer support. So you drop your coverage, but you get sick. Now you've got some enormous medical bills you can no longer pay for, and a rent bill you're delinquent on as-well. You're unable to get new medical coverage, because the pre-existing conditions laws have since lapsed, and all the major insurance carriers subscribe to the same data that that data-broker provided anyway, so you're likely to find similar insurance prices no matter where you go. So now you've got a medical condition you can't pay for, an apartment that's about to kick you to the curb, and few options to pay for either health or home. But hey -- cool family tree!
This scenario already happened multiple times in the 1990's. That is why I refused to give the military my DNA. I went through proper channels, submitted the FOIA requests, got tons of paperwork which amounted to "The chief medical officer may decide what is done with your genetic information". I stalled them long enough that I was still able to get out with an honorable discharge. Several marines were not as lucky as I was.
It was funny though... the commander said, "Are you afraid we will clone you?" to which I replied, "No sir, you should be afraid you will clone me" and we both laughed because I was right. I explained everything you described and he helped me through the process.
It was funny though... the commander said, "Are you afraid we will clone you?" to which I replied, "No sir, you should be afraid you will clone me" and we both laughed because I was right. I explained everything you described and he helped me through the process.
Sounds like an American problem rather than a DNA problem.
It's the dark side of "Information wants to be free." It means that as soon as any information is theoretically public, it becomes practically public.
It's not really a problem right now, because the ACA prevents insurance companies from denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions.
However, it could certainly become a problem in the future, because half the American population really wants the ACA to be rescinded so that insurance companies can go back to that, and they keep voting for candidates who push this.
However, it could certainly become a problem in the future, because half the American population really wants the ACA to be rescinded so that insurance companies can go back to that, and they keep voting for candidates who push this.
In China they use DNA as a way to screen if someone is Uighurs. I think this is a concern for everyone.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/21/business/china-xinjiang-u...
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/21/business/china-xinjiang-u...
No, that's a problem for minorities in China. Sucks to be them, sure, but that doesn't mean it's a problem for everyone on the planet, just like problems affecting Americans are also not problems for everyone on the planet.
Everyone has problems. But everyone's problems are not everyone else's problems.
Everyone has problems. But everyone's problems are not everyone else's problems.
if these kids know how they were conceived, they d be more likely to use one of the DNA services
So far all we have his word that he was assured it would be a limit of 5 people and out of state.
There’s no signed contract that he’s produced, and doesn’t remember how many times he donated. It was decades ago, he could easily be misremembering someone saying the “average” donor is used 5 times. It wouldn’t make sense for a standard contract to include those limits either.
I’m interested where this goes. I’m guessing he’s trying public pressure to force a settlement, knowing he’d lose in trial.
Also, if it wasn’t a cash grab, I think he’d have already committed to giving any settlement to those children.
There’s no signed contract that he’s produced, and doesn’t remember how many times he donated. It was decades ago, he could easily be misremembering someone saying the “average” donor is used 5 times. It wouldn’t make sense for a standard contract to include those limits either.
I’m interested where this goes. I’m guessing he’s trying public pressure to force a settlement, knowing he’d lose in trial.
Also, if it wasn’t a cash grab, I think he’d have already committed to giving any settlement to those children.
Do you keep your contracts from 30 years ago?
What's the situation with anonymity?
If I left a donation, I wouldn't want a knock on the door 18 years later, let alone 15 knocks.
If I left a donation, I wouldn't want a knock on the door 18 years later, let alone 15 knocks.
[deleted]
The connection I’m having trouble making is why having 12 extra kids means he should get $5m. Does he owe child support or something?
Perhaps to punish the clinic for not fulfilling their contract to the donor? It's a pretty egregious failure on their part. I doubt 5m is going to sink the clinic.
I think the logic is that he could really use $5m.
In the US, damages in a lawsuit are not always determined by direct, measurable economic costs. Sometimes damages are punitive, to discourage future malfeasance. Sometimes they are contractual. Sometimes they reflect pain and suffering, or risks whose true value is hard to measure.
I mean, it all depends on what the contract says. If it says that they’ll only do 5 kids out of state it’s a huge breach to do 17 in-state. Contract terms offered from businesses to individuals should be enforced very strongly given the inherent power imbalance of that relationship.
Maybe he already spent $5m on wedding preparations for his offspring while it turns out that the spouse has the same biological father.
Why would Microsoft want 12 x $250K when they find out that you installed your 5-licensed Windows on 17 computers?
It's punitive or to compensate for the donor's emotional toll. For an empathetic person, finding out you have 12 extra kids is incredibly taxing. There's guilt for not having raised them (irrational though it mightbe), shame for not knowing them, fear for their futures, etc etc. I wouldn't wish the situation on anyone.
Well, he should get at least $96.
I dont understand why he cares? Also how could a clinic guarantee a specific number? Don't they normally implant (wrong word?) more embryos since they don't all take and that's how people sometimes end up with twins or triplets?
If you watch his press conference, he seems to be taking a public health angle. He has three sons within his marriage in the same region as his 17 in vitro children. There's increased risk of inbreeding between these 20 people who (unknowingly to one another) share significant genetic material.
https://www.oregonlive.com/news/2019/10/oregon-doctor-says-h...
https://www.oregonlive.com/news/2019/10/oregon-doctor-says-h...
Is that really a health concern though? Single generation shouldn't have risks higher than some already at risk people have no matter who they partner with.
What I've learned is that there's significant risk even for cousins who have children together, so even more for half siblings.
... if the cousins' parents and grandparents are similarly closely related to each other, yes. Otherwise probably not.
My understanding is that 1 generation of first-cousin marriage is very low risk.
The problem comes when you have many generations of family marriages in a row.
The Catholic church tried to make cousin marriages taboo as a way to break up clans and solidify church power.
The problem comes when you have many generations of family marriages in a row.
The Catholic church tried to make cousin marriages taboo as a way to break up clans and solidify church power.
You're right. It's weird that people are rushing in here to defend inbreeding.
What people might not realize is even when there's not a specific disease caused by the inbreeding, there is still an overall negative effect on health, "inbreeding depression".
Here is a paper that estimates the effect in humans: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26131930.
What people might not realize is even when there's not a specific disease caused by the inbreeding, there is still an overall negative effect on health, "inbreeding depression".
Here is a paper that estimates the effect in humans: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26131930.
Anything first cousin or closer is bad. Second cousin is kinda bad. Third cousin is OK if it's not happening all the time.
[deleted]
> There's increased risk of inbreeding between these 20 people who (unknowingly to one another) share significant genetic material.
Which is why this whole thing is immoral (not to mention dangerous) to begin with. How can you not assign children to both the (real/biological) father and mother to keep track of these things?
Which is why this whole thing is immoral (not to mention dangerous) to begin with. How can you not assign children to both the (real/biological) father and mother to keep track of these things?
The danger of inbreeding is overblown. It generally takes multiple generations of repeated inbreeding for genetic anomalies to develop.
Half sibling (or uncle/aunt) inbreeding is considerably higher risk than first cousin interbreeding. Only sibling is worse.
I have 2 recessive things that I know I carry, thanks to genetic screening. If I boinked a half sibling, they'd probably be a carrier of 1 of them, and there's a 50-50 chance any resultant offspring would have the conditions.
(Neither would be fatal but both would be severe chronic things-- e.g. hemachromatosis.
There's probably other rarer recessive things that I'm a carrier of and don't even know about.
I have 2 recessive things that I know I carry, thanks to genetic screening. If I boinked a half sibling, they'd probably be a carrier of 1 of them, and there's a 50-50 chance any resultant offspring would have the conditions.
(Neither would be fatal but both would be severe chronic things-- e.g. hemachromatosis.
There's probably other rarer recessive things that I'm a carrier of and don't even know about.
> I have 2 recessive things that I know I carry, thanks to genetic screening. If I boinked a half sibling
...you could take steps to assure safety first, thanks to genetic screening.
...you could take steps to assure safety first, thanks to genetic screening.
Sure, but A) genetic screening only knows about the common issues, and B) if you marry someone random and don't realize they're a half sibling, you might not bother with genetic screening.
It doesn't change the argument. The fact that the father does not know who his offspring are (and the other way around) is quite bizarre to say the least.
Bizarre is sending messages across hundreds of miles using electrified sand. Men impregnating women and moving on is as old as large scale war, at least.
We're not in a large scale war. Today, this behavior is seen as desirable, without realizing what the effects are.
It's selfish behavior on both the donor and the recipient, and who ends up paying for it are the offspring and most likely society as well.
It's selfish behavior on both the donor and the recipient, and who ends up paying for it are the offspring and most likely society as well.
> We're not in a large scale war.
No, but we're in a large society where men can and do have sex with women (consensually or not) once and leave them pregnant. I'm not making a moral judgement, I'm saying that mostly anonymous sperm donations have been happening long before IVF and sperm banks were a thing, so the results aren't as unpredictable as you paint them.
No, but we're in a large society where men can and do have sex with women (consensually or not) once and leave them pregnant. I'm not making a moral judgement, I'm saying that mostly anonymous sperm donations have been happening long before IVF and sperm banks were a thing, so the results aren't as unpredictable as you paint them.
So let's just enable this behavior even more, on an even larger scale? What you described happens, but it's not comparable to this. A single man's sperm can now be used to impregnate several women with a much lower barrier (as we can see from the article posted here). This issue has also been reported elsewhere, it's clearly becoming more wide spread, and we don't know what we're getting ourselves into, all because of greed and selfishness.
The probability of harm to potential offspring does in fact change the moral argument (which seems to be what you were going for).
Hypothetically, even if it didn't harm the offspring, it must be kept track of who are their real parents.
because genetic testing will also exist in the future
It's not a solution. Not everyone is going to get tested before they get married.
It's interesting how far left/liberal culture today mocks communities that have cousin marriages as "inbred" and "backward", yet they engage in severe and reckless practices that we have no idea how they're going to pan out.
It's interesting how far left/liberal culture today mocks communities that have cousin marriages as "inbred" and "backward", yet they engage in severe and reckless practices that we have no idea how they're going to pan out.
What does "liberal culture" have to do with sperm donation?
Conservative cultures don't allow this practice, they generally still strongly hold to the family as the building unit of society, whereas this practice continues to dismantle it.
We're ending up in a society where people don't know who their offspring are, and where children don't know who their real parents are. This is untrodden ground, and may very well have extremely serious consequences.
We're ending up in a society where people don't know who their offspring are, and where children don't know who their real parents are. This is untrodden ground, and may very well have extremely serious consequences.
i really don't see why. back then there was no IVF and donor sperm would be a way for good old fashioned conservative couples who cant conceive to have the children they always wanted
A conservative couple won't use a sperm donor. The woman will
literally be carrying another man's child, not her husband's.
What makes you say so? They wouldn't adopt a kid too? I don't think it's a "left" issue at all for couples. For single mothers, maybe
Adoption is different if done properly. The adopted child should not in anyway be implied or declared to be of the same bloodline as the adopting parents, otherwise we'll end up with the same issue seen here. It's also important that the child know that they're adopted from early on, and not hide that fact.
Whereas artificial insemination is literally having the woman carry another man's child, it goes against conservative values (would they let another man sleep with the woman to impregnate her if there weren't artificial insemination?)
Whereas artificial insemination is literally having the woman carry another man's child, it goes against conservative values (would they let another man sleep with the woman to impregnate her if there weren't artificial insemination?)
I 'm pretty sure they will / especially if they don't know their biological father.
1. Not everybody knows that they don't know their biological father.
2. My wife is adopted, has had some contact with her biological mother, but zero reliable information on her biological father (her bio mom lies about pretty much everything). She has shown no interest in the various genetic tests out there, even though she has to keep on writing on those health forms at her doctor "unknown" for all the "Does X run in your family" questions.
2. My wife is adopted, has had some contact with her biological mother, but zero reliable information on her biological father (her bio mom lies about pretty much everything). She has shown no interest in the various genetic tests out there, even though she has to keep on writing on those health forms at her doctor "unknown" for all the "Does X run in your family" questions.
understand. i would assume though that people who are missing info about one of their parents are more likely to use those services
The fertility clinic told him the kids would all be out-of-state. Some of the kids live near him and go to the same school and church as his kids. People who don't know they're siblings shouldn't live close enough to each other to become romantically involved.
Well, some percentage of kids have fathers other than the ones they are aware of, since long before IVF was a thing. That's just life. Unless you and your potential mate get tested, you could always be half siblings. You have no way to know.
This isn't just life, it's a business that failed to live up to its contract.
> The fertility clinic told him the kids would all be out-of-state.
As if this excuses this sort of behavior.
As if this excuses this sort of behavior.
I dont understand why he cares?
Two of the children contacted him first. That might have been just them innocuously looking for their biological parent, or it might have been a demand for parental support. If it's the latter then having 17 or more children potentially making a demand on him would make a big difference to his life.
Also how could a clinic guarantee a specific number?
They could count the number of successful children born with sperm from a donor and stop using that donation once there are 5 children.
Two of the children contacted him first. That might have been just them innocuously looking for their biological parent, or it might have been a demand for parental support. If it's the latter then having 17 or more children potentially making a demand on him would make a big difference to his life.
Also how could a clinic guarantee a specific number?
They could count the number of successful children born with sperm from a donor and stop using that donation once there are 5 children.
That all makes sense but I still don't think guaranteeing a specific number is possible. Say they had 4 successful births an are going for a 5th to reach the limit. We'll they'll implant more than 1 because that's how IVF works and so more than 5 could be born. I definitely get that 17 means they just ignored his wish entirely. I was just trying to point out that guaranteeing a specific number doesn't seem like a reasonable/possible thing to do.
the limit is typically measured in families, and within those families we’re usually not talking a dozen children each. a sperm bank that limits to 10 families per donor will probably end up in the ballpark of 10-20 children. (10 families is a very conservative limit - most banks go higher.) there can be a mad scramble to buy “sibling” vials from an otherwise retired donor if a family decides that they are done with extra vials.
ivf nowadays is also very much more strict about what you transfer. i did ivf a few months ago and we only transferred one PGS tested, day 5 embryo because a second one was not going to do anything good for me or the pregnancy odds.
2-3 decades ago both the tech and the feelings around donor identities and limits were very different. but nowadays we’re moving towards smaller limits and open identity of some sort, while fewer donor gametes are necessary for people to get pregnant. it’s curious.
ivf nowadays is also very much more strict about what you transfer. i did ivf a few months ago and we only transferred one PGS tested, day 5 embryo because a second one was not going to do anything good for me or the pregnancy odds.
2-3 decades ago both the tech and the feelings around donor identities and limits were very different. but nowadays we’re moving towards smaller limits and open identity of some sort, while fewer donor gametes are necessary for people to get pregnant. it’s curious.
It seems like he feels responsible for the ones he's met. They're no longer strangers. What would it be like for them to fall on hard times? He might be feeling the need to help them proactively, perhaps by putting them through college, and this is something he might need money from the lawsuit in order to do.
It's a breach of contract, plain and simple. If he had a written agreement that his sperm would be used to father 5 children and no more, and the clinic violated that, then he is entirely within his rights to sue the clinic for reneging on its half of the deal.
As for guaranteeing a specific number, first, if they couldn't guarantee that, why would they agree to the limit in the first place? And even if the guarantee was violated without intent, I would expect perhaps 6 or 7 children... not 17.
As for guaranteeing a specific number, first, if they couldn't guarantee that, why would they agree to the limit in the first place? And even if the guarantee was violated without intent, I would expect perhaps 6 or 7 children... not 17.
>alleges that the OHSU clinic used his 1989 sperm donation to father at least 17 children—some who live in his area—despite him making an agreement with the clinic at the time that his sperm would be used for no more than five children, all born to women living out of the state.
>Some go to the same school as the kids he has with his wife.
That's so awkward and uncomfortable for me to even think about it, being in this situation...
>Some go to the same school as the kids he has with his wife.
That's so awkward and uncomfortable for me to even think about it, being in this situation...
Breach of contract on location and number increases the possibility of accidental inbreeding for his children and those children concieved with his sperm without his knowledge. Very possible if those children go to the same school etc.
Yep, your guess was exactly on point, as the article mentions.
>Some go to the same school as the kids he has with his wife.
>Some go to the same school as the kids he has with his wife.
Do you not care when your expectations are breached?
The objection that the clinic couldn't actually guarantee a specific number of children doesn't hold water since they could have stopped using his sperm once the 5th child was born.
The objection that the clinic couldn't actually guarantee a specific number of children doesn't hold water since they could have stopped using his sperm once the 5th child was born.
It sounds like there were conditions (don't use it in this region, no more than 5 kids, etc) that weren't met.
For IVF, the best practice is to implant 3-4 embryos, sometimes less when the woman doesn't have fertility issues. Obviously circumstances vary and IVF results in more multiples, but you're not going to get 5 sets of triplets if the clinic is doing what they agreed to do.
For IVF, the best practice is to implant 3-4 embryos, sometimes less when the woman doesn't have fertility issues. Obviously circumstances vary and IVF results in more multiples, but you're not going to get 5 sets of triplets if the clinic is doing what they agreed to do.
current best practice is no longer that high unless you have very low quality early embryos and the eggs are from
someone that is 38+ years old. even 3 can be pushing it.
i had genetically tested day 5 blastocysts with my last cycle and most fertility doctors will not dare transfer more than one of those at a time regardless of age. but that is the best quality to transfer nowadays.
nobody wants to optimize for multiples any more since the rate of issues for both the embryos and the gestational parent are pretty high.
i had genetically tested day 5 blastocysts with my last cycle and most fertility doctors will not dare transfer more than one of those at a time regardless of age. but that is the best quality to transfer nowadays.
nobody wants to optimize for multiples any more since the rate of issues for both the embryos and the gestational parent are pretty high.
The number of live births (rate of success) has increased; even with older mothers there is a push for 1 or two implanted embryos at a time.
by the birthday paradox the odds of incest are quite high
Let's assume his 17 kids (k) are locals. Let's say he lives in a city with 1 million people. That's 500000 potential other sex mates (assuming hetero) We're only interested in people more less our age, about 20% of the population (actually much smaller), so 100 000 = N
Chance of incest = 1 - p where p = N!/(N^k (N-k)!)
Using the sterling's approximation, and that half his kids are opposite gender, k -> k / 2 = 6.5
About 2 in 10 000 chance of incest. Which are really high for something many people consider worse than death.
Now, my assumption of 20% is too generous. What if it's 10%, and he has more, undiscovered kids (presumably who haven't gotten tested)? Let's say 30 kids (it's happened)
1 in 2 thousand for every mate. You wouldn't get into a car that had those odds of a fatal accident, never mind 6, 10, 30 times.
Let's assume his 17 kids (k) are locals. Let's say he lives in a city with 1 million people. That's 500000 potential other sex mates (assuming hetero) We're only interested in people more less our age, about 20% of the population (actually much smaller), so 100 000 = N
Chance of incest = 1 - p where p = N!/(N^k (N-k)!)
Using the sterling's approximation, and that half his kids are opposite gender, k -> k / 2 = 6.5
About 2 in 10 000 chance of incest. Which are really high for something many people consider worse than death.
Now, my assumption of 20% is too generous. What if it's 10%, and he has more, undiscovered kids (presumably who haven't gotten tested)? Let's say 30 kids (it's happened)
1 in 2 thousand for every mate. You wouldn't get into a car that had those odds of a fatal accident, never mind 6, 10, 30 times.
> Also how could a clinic guarantee a specific number?
Either they shouldn't have guaranteed this, and made it clear that they couldn't, or they should have abided by the agreement. Either way, the clinic is at fault.
Either they shouldn't have guaranteed this, and made it clear that they couldn't, or they should have abided by the agreement. Either way, the clinic is at fault.
Clinics are often only involved in the “getting pregnant” stage. They rely on reports of live birth to determine when they should stop using a particular donor.
One of the reasons he cares is because of the chance of incest.
Some of his kids went to the same schools and churches.
Some of his kids went to the same schools and churches.
Why should he care? Because there is clearly a lack of regulation over the sperm-donor industry. It is extremely dangerous for men to make these deposits.
A friend of mine made a deposit in a sperm donor bank prior to getting a vasectomy. Two years later, he met a woman, who he dated for a few weeks before breaking it off.
9 months later, he was presented with child support demands from the state. She had stalked him, determined he had made a deposit in the sperm bank, then specifically chosen his profile to get pregnant.
He is now liable for child support, whether he likes it or not, for the rest of his life (California, in case its of importance). They didn't have sex - she stalked him, got artificially inseminated, and then went to the state to extract money from him. He now has a kid he never wanted, and is resigned to being a father to the child, even though he never planned it and it was forced upon him by a criminal stalker.
This highlights just how dangerous it is for men to use these services. Clearly, more regulation and oversight is required - especially if sperm banks are making their own decisions about how their resources are applied.
A friend of mine made a deposit in a sperm donor bank prior to getting a vasectomy. Two years later, he met a woman, who he dated for a few weeks before breaking it off.
9 months later, he was presented with child support demands from the state. She had stalked him, determined he had made a deposit in the sperm bank, then specifically chosen his profile to get pregnant.
He is now liable for child support, whether he likes it or not, for the rest of his life (California, in case its of importance). They didn't have sex - she stalked him, got artificially inseminated, and then went to the state to extract money from him. He now has a kid he never wanted, and is resigned to being a father to the child, even though he never planned it and it was forced upon him by a criminal stalker.
This highlights just how dangerous it is for men to use these services. Clearly, more regulation and oversight is required - especially if sperm banks are making their own decisions about how their resources are applied.
Either your friend was lying or he should get a better lawyer.
The relevant law in California states that sperm donors are not legal parents: “The donor of semen provided to a licensed physician and surgeon or to a licensed sperm bank for use in assisted reproduction of a woman other than the donor’s spouse is treated in law as if he were not the natural parent of a child thereby conceived, unless otherwise agreed to in a writing signed by the donor and the woman prior to the conception of the child,” states California Family Code 7613.
The relevant law in California states that sperm donors are not legal parents: “The donor of semen provided to a licensed physician and surgeon or to a licensed sperm bank for use in assisted reproduction of a woman other than the donor’s spouse is treated in law as if he were not the natural parent of a child thereby conceived, unless otherwise agreed to in a writing signed by the donor and the woman prior to the conception of the child,” states California Family Code 7613.
>Either your friend was lying or he should get a better lawyer.
This is the problem with people saying "this isn't legal in America": it's all based on how good your lawyer is, and if you can't afford Johnny Cochrane, you get screwed, no matter what the law says.
This is the problem with people saying "this isn't legal in America": it's all based on how good your lawyer is, and if you can't afford Johnny Cochrane, you get screwed, no matter what the law says.
My friend didn't lie. The reason he is liable is because he dated her, a fact she kept evidence of, in order to present at the alimony hearing. The judge assumed this was enough to prove his responsibility for the child she then conceived (without him). That's the crux.
This is why you have the right of discovery in court cases. He could simply show that she was lying by demonstrating that she got sperm from the sperm bank. (Alternatively, he could have proven that he had a vasectomy before they dated). Both of those two things leave hard medical records.
Like I said before, either your friend lied or he needs a better lawyer. Given the story that you stated, the law is definitely on his side.
Like I said before, either your friend lied or he needs a better lawyer. Given the story that you stated, the law is definitely on his side.
He did all that. The judge decided he needed to pay child support anyway. The rights of the child were greater than that of my friend.
Anyway, he fought back and is now a very dedicated father. He has visitation rights, and soon enough the childs decision to move in with her Dad, because her Mom is a criminal, will be ratified in court ..
Anyway, he fought back and is now a very dedicated father. He has visitation rights, and soon enough the childs decision to move in with her Dad, because her Mom is a criminal, will be ratified in court ..
agreed. time to talk to a lawyer. also maybe the sperm bank, as it’s not trivial at most of them to discover who the donor is to that degree. certainly makes me raise an eyebrow that the timing was so perfect too.
i have a further thought - i am a legal owner of an “intimate partner” storage account where my partner’s sperm is stored for only my use as their spouse. even with the very very low FDA testing/paperwork bar for this type of account, there’s a paper trail that can be followed and a chain of custody for every single vial ever used. they’ll have even more documentation if the friend’s sperm was ever for sale.
i have a further thought - i am a legal owner of an “intimate partner” storage account where my partner’s sperm is stored for only my use as their spouse. even with the very very low FDA testing/paperwork bar for this type of account, there’s a paper trail that can be followed and a chain of custody for every single vial ever used. they’ll have even more documentation if the friend’s sperm was ever for sale.
There will be records for the vasectomy and the insemination that could be subpoena'd by a court, no?
Your friend must have realized that there was a possibility of his future child (or multiple future children) seeking him out one day. You don't donate to a sperm bank if you NEVER want to have a kid. Did he need $40 that badly?
Your friend was not very wise here.
Your friend was not very wise here.
Maybe he wanted to help infertile couples to have a child, and thought he could offer good genetics to such couples, with the agreement that he wouldn't be financially responsible for the children. He never intended to offer his genetic code to a psycho stalker who abused his donation in order to get him on the hook for 18 years of child support.
"specifically chosen his profile to get pregnant"
So can he not prove this in court ? Sure it still adds hassle for him to go through all this legal stuff. But it is not like he just has to shut up and pay IF what you said is true.
So can he not prove this in court ? Sure it still adds hassle for him to go through all this legal stuff. But it is not like he just has to shut up and pay IF what you said is true.
He did go to court. She lied and said she got pregnant by him when they were dating.
[deleted]
Does it matter why? If they agreed to it and then broke that agreement that is a problem.
Well I think it's obvious why he cares... his children are trying to reach him. As for guaranteeing a specific number of children, no I don't believe they would be able to do that. However, I think the problem is not that they can not guarantee a specific number of children. The problem is that they guaranteed a specific number of woman who would be impregnated with his sperm but have gone well beyond the number they gave him.
It is said to think that my biological father is probably dead. He was apparently a Vietnam vet who needed some extra money. I'm glad he did what he did.