There are several other risks in using informal sperm donors. In Australia, formal donation is via regulated clinics, with genetic and STI screening occurring and state and territory caps in place to limit the number of children born of the same donor. But as we have seen this week, informal donors are not bound by such rules. In this scenario, not only are women at risk of contracting STIs, but children could inherit unexpected genetic conditions, may be unable to contact their donor in the future, and be at risk of consanguinity (where donor siblings unfamiliar to each other engage in romantic relationships).
Loading
Despite the risks, using a sperm donor found online isnβt necessarily a βwrongβ or βbadβ choice. For many women, online donation is preferable and allows them to meet potential donors of similar cultural background, and who will remain in the childβs life. But the reality is that some do conduct themselves in morally reprehensible and legally questionable ways.
There is no simple solution to limit the problems associated with informal donation. It is complex and needs to be navigated sensitively with the donors, recipients and childrenβs best interests in mind.
A careful balance needs to be struck between reproductive autonomy and an evaluation of legal mechanisms and ethical frameworks that can be applied to protect those involved. We need to better understand the motivations of donors and why people are using informal donors.
In 2021, the Andrews government rejected calls for an informal sperm donor registry. If this weekβs story proves anything, itβs that the need for one remains. The rapid review is a good start, but there must also be checks and balances on the number of donations a donor has made, and a wholesale review of regulated IVF clinics and why they are failing to attract so many people, who are instead engaging in riskier pathways to parenthood.
Informal sperm donation should not just be considered a private issue or an issue between consenting donors and recipients. The ethical, legal and social implications for donors, recipients and resulting children are far-reaching. Matters concerning the numbers of potential half-siblings, sexual coercion and inheritable genetic conditions are just some of the issues that will impact our healthcare system, economy and our civic responsibilities if this issue continues as it is now. It is fundamentally a public health issue, and it is of public interest that change occurs.
Neera Bhatia is an associate professor at Deakin Law School, and the director of the Law, Health and Society Research Unit.