Submission to the NHMRC inquiry into ART
email: ethics@nhmrc.gov.au
Project Officer – ART guidelines
http://consultations.nhmrc.gov.au/files/consultations/drafts/e78partbartpublicco
nsultation120226.pdf
SUMMARY
I consider this review very limited in A) breadth, and in B) addressing new genetic manipulation
about to happen.
The following are broad areas which I will address in more detail later:
A) Limitations on donor offspring numbers and family structures. Donors are limited to helping 5
families or creating 10 children depending on the individual state legislation. These numbers have
been plucked from thin air without any actuarial study of the highest number of offspring, for a
given population size, for a zero probability of consanguinity. Nor has there been any attempt to
factor in “Knowness” amongst donor offspring. IF Donor Conceived People, DCP, know their siblings
at age 18 they will not partner/marry them so as to prevent consanguinity. If a donor has 1,000
offspring and they all KNOW each other the probability of consanguinity is zero.
B) Under current legislation DCP can only establish family bonds at age 18. The best time for DCP to
know their antecedents and their siblings are as they are growing up.
C) Limitations on the number of embryos to be implanted with mandatory SET (Single Embryo
Transfer) can be against a patient’s wishes. Patients do not control their own bodies or their
reproductive choices with mandatory SET regulations. {5.1 Respect all participants is violated by not
allowing a patient’s wishes for two embryo transfer}
D) IVF clinics breaching privacy by extracting donor information from the NSW donor database (This
happened to me with [NHMRC has removed third party information]. {5.5 & 5.6 Obtain Consent &
Maintain Privacy is violated when the clinic researches the patients without their knowledge on the
NSW donor database}
E) Mandatory maximum ages for sperm donors. Donors with adult children have proof that they are
not transmitting or carrying any genetic abnormalities. Older donors are therefore better donors!!
Admittedly there is a slight arithmetical increase in degradation of the DNA in the sperm of older
donors. It should be the recipient’s wishes to use an older donor not a mandatory clinic restriction.
Older sperm donors with fresh sperm will have fewer genetic deformities than the current practice
of using frozen sperm from younger donors with unproven genetics.
F) There is a lack of legislation for adoption and ownership of frozen embryos. This includes individual
“ownership” of the frozen embryos so that the male and female progenitors can individually use
the embryos without the consent or not of the other parent.
G) Lack of legislation on post-mortem reproduction (see Deuteronomy 25:5-10) where post-mortem
reproduction is legislated by God as mandatory. The current situation violates a core biblical and
ethical underpinning of our Judaeo Christian civilisation. The penalty for violation of this law is
immediate death (Genesis 38:8-10). This practice of post mortem reproduction is at least
4,000years old.
H) The ban on commercial surrogacy in Australia not only violates a person’s free choice to use their
body as they wish but it violates several established legal principles that a woman’s body belongs
to her. This is enshrined in our abortion laws and also in the acceptance that a woman can rent out
her body for prostitution.
I) This review is retrospective in its viewpoint and is not considering the advances in reproductive
technology. There is no provision for advances in the technology for the manipulation of the genes
and chromosomes of the embryo. The new technology can create 3 or more person embryos. Nor
is there any provision to prevent the embryo being used as a seed to hasten a breeding process
where the embryo is not allowed to develop into a person but procreation is achieved using half
the chromosomes from this embryo and combining them with a similar process from another
embryo.
SECTION 5
Q1. Have you encountered any difficulties in the interpretation and/or application of the
current ethical guidance in Section 5.
The current ethical guidelines are deficient in what they omit, not in what they include. What they include
is excellent and easy to understand. I will concentrate mostly on what they omit.
Q2. Do you think that there are gaps in the current ethical guidance in Section 5?
5.3.1 States that clinics should have policies and procedures covering a number of areas. However, when
prospective parents want a procedure not according to the clinic’s policy and procedure the client should
have the overriding decision. A case in point is SET which seems to be the policy of all Australian clinics.
Patients are prevented from obtaining multiple embryo transfer. Patients often have valid reasons for
requesting this procedure. Most countries in the world will allow the implantation of two embryos. This
seems like a great way for clinics to maximise profits.
Q3. Should Section 5 recognise the significance of the ‘biological connection’ (e.g. between
donor-conceived persons and the donors of gametes, between donor-conceived
persons and their siblings or half-siblings, or between persons conceived from donated
embryos and their genetic parents) as an additional ethical principle for the clinical
practice of ART? (see also questions in relation to Paragraphs 6.1.1 and 6.1.2 and
Section 9.2).
Yes it is critical for DCP to know where they come from! This is proved by;
A) Normal people doing their genealogies back hundreds of years,
B) The creation of the DSR (Donor Sibling Register) in the USA.
C) The experience of adopted people trying to find out “Who they are” and “Where they came from”
and “Why they were given away or stolen” by opening their records.
D) The age of this happening (only to DCP) is now an artificial age 18. Children need this knowledge as
they are growing up to help them form themselves. It is NOT an age 18 adjunct as it is too late then.
Q4. Are there any further ethical principles for the clinical practice of ART which should be
included in Section 5?
All donors should have mandatory genetic screening for common transmissible genetic faults. Genetic
screening is inexpensive compared to the cost of caring for DCP with genetic faults in the first and
subsequent generations.
Section 5.1
Q5. Is more guidance needed on what constitutes the ‘welfare of those involved’?
YES! The welfare of those involved includes:
A) Donors need to know that their “Gift children” are secure. They need to have legal rights in the
event of parental death rendering the DCP an orphan or incapacity of the primary care givers or
paedophilia within the family,
B) DCP need knowledge of their entire family. This includes antecedents, half siblings and their
decendants.
C) Biological parents need an update from the donor as to any changes in the donor’s medical history
including the donor’s parents, siblings and donor offspring,
D) Non Bio parents need security in parenting affording them legal protection. NSW currently
recognises the non-biological mother in a lesbian partnership as the legal mother.
Section 5.2
Q6. Paragraph 5.2.1 – Should there be exceptions to the restrictions/limitations on
accumulating gametes/embryos in some situations? e.g. for fertility preservation in
children, young people and adults undergoing chemotherapy, for the purposes of
preimplantation genetic diagnosis, and/or for women with reduced ovarian reserve.
Yes to all the above situations.
Both men and women can be subject to cancers of the reproductive areas even as junior teenagers. Parents
of such people should have the legal right to ensure the welfare of their minor children is secured till such
time as that child is an adult and able to exercise their own decision.
Additionally some people with a transmissible genetic problem may require many embryos to be created to
allow PGD to obtain a few embryos that are not corrupted by defective genes.
Q7. Should there be a mandatory requirement for clinics to have policies and procedures
around embryos which are excess to the requirements of patients?
YES. There should be the ability of clinics to offer for adoption surplus embryos to people who are
approved by the relinquishing parents. This would be similar to the NSW legislation that allows gamete
donors to state who shall and who shall NOT receive their gametes.
Section 5.3
Q8. Paragraph 5.3.1 – Should financial transparency be included in this list of protocols.
Yes. Clinic costs should be part of their advertising and information package.
SECTION 6
Q9. Have you encountered any difficulties in the interpretation and/or application of the
current ethical guidance in Section 6?
DCP (Donor Conceived People) can only establish family bonds after age 18. The best time for DCP to know
their antecedents and siblings are as they are growing up.
{“6.1 Uphold the right to knowledge of genetic parents and siblings” is violated by only allowing DCP to
know their genetic heritage at age 18. The personality and links for the DCP should have been part of their
growth to adulthood. The lie that is told to DCP for 18 years is not a helpful way for them to form their self
identity. Nor is the knowledge that there may be more siblings yet to discover. Additionally the donor or
grandparents may have died in those 18 years thus depriving the DCP of the best way to learn their
identity.}
{6.1.3 recommends that clinics encourage men to register their details so that DCP can contact them. I did
this on the NSW database and this was searched by [NHMRC has removed third party information] to reject
me as a donor for a lesbian couple. I bitterly regret registering and would advise all men to avoid this
registration as their privacy is not secure}
{6.2.1 Minor children are allowed to marry with the court’s and parent’s permission. Therefore they should
be allowed to donate gametes with their parent’s permission at a younger age}
{6.2.2 Older men carry positive and negating genetic risks in being sperm donors. Some genetic problems
increase with a man’s age. However, If the man has adult children with no genetic problems then that
confers a positive statement that the man is not a carrier of any pre-existing genetic problems. Some
research has suggested that the telomeres of the chromosomes of older men are better/longer and that
length will confer longevity upon all offspring. Currently clinics will not even accept an older man as a donor
therefore they cannot give recipients the possibility of making a choice to use an older proven donor. 6.2.2
is voided by clinic rules.} I was rejected as a clinic donor at age 52, I now have 16 “Normal” children and
several current pregnancies.
{6.11 applies to people of age 18 in most cases. It should be part of the formative information of all DCP
from infancy, 2yo. Lies to children can never be undone, even lies of omission.}
{6.12 Gamete donors should be appraised of significant changes in the status of their donated children. If
the child is orphaned or put into foster care or if the child is subject to abuse or paedophilia then the donor
should have first right of refusal to become the guardian rather than the child going into foster care.}
{6.14 the use of frozen embryos states “the persons for whom the embryo has been created have
responsibility for decision making about its use in their own reproductive treatment and the medical care of
the embryo (both before and after implantation into the uterus), storage and disposal” There is an implied
assumption that the persons (PLURAL) are now still in agreement about the future of the frozen embryo. A
divorcing couple may NOT be in agreement over the use of the embryos. The section should have in the
initial permission the wording “the persons individually or collectively”}
{6.15&16 Post mortem reproduction. The guidelines are a violation of the Judeo Christian ethic on two
counts. Firstly it was codified 3,500 years ago that post mortem reproduction was mandatory in
Deuteronomy 25: 5-10. Historical records (Genesis 38:8-10) from 4,000 years ago state that failure to abide
by this oral law was punishable by death by God immediately and personally. Secondly as a Christian I
believe that the man and the woman become “one flesh, so they are not two but one” so it follows that the
wife must have the legal authority to either extract the dead or vegative husband’s sperm or use any sperm
that has been stored. The guidelines prohibit this occurring are therefore wrong.}
{6.3.1 Restricting the number of DCP from any one donor. Since there has never been any actuarial study
done of the maximum population size, of multiple gendered offspring, to have a zero probability of
consanguinity every limit on the number of donor offspring is a cruel guess with no basis in reality.
Additionally with the dramatic reduction in cost of genetic testing to date and predicted in the future DNA
testing will become inexpensive and automatic. Also, with DCP knowing at age 18 their donor’s name and
their own status as DCP the probability of them inbreeding with any siblings is zero even if they have 1,000
siblings. Such restrictions on fully using genetically superior donors is bizarre and not founded on any facts.}
Q10. Do you think that there are gaps in the current ethical guidance in Section 6?
{6.10 there is no provision upon clinics to review donors to ascertain their current medical status and with
respect to the number of offspring that they may currently have.}
There is no provision for advances in the technology for the manipulation of the genes and chromosomes
of the embryo. The regulations and ethics only relate to current technology! With the new technology in
replacing the mitochondrial DNA but preserving unchanged the embryo’s basic 46 chromosomes has
created 3 person embryos. It is not beyond the bounds of SF reality that soon individual chromosomes in
either the sperm, egg or single cell embryo may be able to be extracted and replaced. This will either
facilitate the creation of the ubermensch or the prevention of the untermensch where defective genes are
linked to a single chromosome. Nor is there any provision to prevent the embryo being used as a seed to
hasten a breeding process where the embryo is not allowed to develop into a person but procreation is
achieved using half the chromosomes from this embryo and combining them with a similar process from
another embryo.
Q11. Should there be a standard way that data is collected and stored to facilitate linkage?
•
If so, how?
•
Should this guidance be included in the ART guidelines?
There should be a national donor/recipient database where individual state databases are amalgamated up
and individual clinic results are also incorporated.
Additionally the many informal internet sperm web groups should encourage their members, both donors
and recipients to register. Many recipients request “unknown” donors and many donors only donate as an
“Unknown” donor and via[NHMRC has removed third party information]. Additionally many recipients who
undertake an agreement with a donor later renege on that agreement and the donor cannot develop a
relationship with the child and the mother deprives the child of their genetic heritage.
YES this guidance should be part of IVF clinic procedures.
Q12. What is the best-practice to facilitate a first contact between donor/s and the donor conceived
person?
•
Should this guidance be included in the ART guidelines??
The best practice is for the DCP to know their donor from birth. This is what the DSR (Donor Sibling Register
in America) has found. It is what I know from my own experience with my 16 little children.
This should be part of the guidelines. At the least it could be offered as an option to both donors and to
recipients.
Q13. Does the statement in Paragraph 6.1.2 need to be strengthened? (see also questions in relation to
Section 5 and Section 9.2)
•
If so, in what ways?
The statement if fine as it is. Getting compliance will be the problem.
Q14. What assistance is required to support parents in telling their children about their genetic origins?
•
Should this guidance be included in the ART guidelines?
•
How, and by whom, should this assistance be provided? e.g. Is there a role for community
practitioners such as GPs and maternal-child health nurses?
There needs to be easy to read children’s books for children from age 1yo upwards, eg “Sometimes it needs
a friend to help make a baby”.
Q15. Paragraph 6.1.3
•
Who should be involved in the dissemination of information to gamete donors (or gamete
providers for donated embryos) about children born as a result of their donation? (see also questions in
relation to Section 6.12)
•
How can gamete donors and donor-conceived persons be encouraged?
Donors should receive annual updates with photos of the child so that they are keen and prepared when
they meet the DCP. Therefore parents should prepare annual reports on their “Gift child” for onforwarding
to the donor.
Q16. In the best interest of the child, should there be an age limit for:
•
male gamete donors?
NO!! A) I am 65yo and all my 16 little children are ubermensch with no genetic problems. B) I have 4
current pregnancies.
•
female gamete donors?
Yes maximum age 40yo.
•
male and female gamete providers for donated embryos?
If so, what do you think the age limit(s) should be?
Same as the above 40yo for women and no limits for men.
Q17. Should there be an age limit for female recipients of gamete or embryo donation?
•
If so, what do you think this age limit should be?
Embryos NO!! there should not be any age limit for recipients of donated embryos for them to gestate or
subcontract out gestation.
Gametes 40yo for women without PGD and 50yo with PGD.
Section 6.3
Q18. Is more guidance required to enable clinics to take all reasonable steps to reduce the numbers of
genetic relatives created through donor gamete programs? What guidance do you recommend?
Consanguinity is only a factor and a problem where the siblings/cousins do not know one another. IF a man
has 1,000 genetic offspring AND they all know one another then the probability of
incest/inbreeding/consanguinity is zero. Jesus said “You shall know the truth and the truth shall set you
free” John 8:32.
It is the opposite question to 18 which should be asked. Not this regressive question.
Q19. Should paragraph 6.4.1 be revised? If so, how?
Yes the paragraph is discriminatory as it stands.
It should read “Clinics should accept donations from people at an increased risk of transmissible infections
but apply more strict and frequent testing for transmissible diseases.”
Possible recipients should be informed that the donor has a high risk of acquiring a serious disease which
may affect his longevity and the possibility of making contact with children from his donations.
Section 6.5
Q20. In view of developments in other countries allowing women to receive compensation above
medical and travelling expenses for donating eggs, should it be permissible for Australian women to also
be compensated for the reproductive effort and risks associated with donating their eggs? (See also
Section 13 Surrogacy)
Egg donation has serious risks to a woman’s health and her later fertility. There should be a risk factor
included into the payment. Additionally there should be a retained compensation factor for women who
have medical problems as the result of egg donation.
I believe that a woman’s body belongs to her (discussed elsewhere) she should be able to charge a market
rate for her eggs depending on her eugenic quotient in intelligence and body morphology.
Q21. Should more guidance be given about the reimbursement of legitimate expenses?
What guidance would you recommend?
I disagree with the premise of this question. I believe that a woman is entitled to much more than a
reimbursement of legitimate expenses.
Section 6.7 (see also Section 7.5)
Q22. Are there any specific relationships that give rise to particular concerns between donor and
recipient that should be included in the guidelines? e.g. egg or embryo donation from a daughter to her
mother.
Only those relationships listed in the Prayer Book “The Table of Kindred and Affinity” for combination of
genes. But not for relocation of sperm, eggs and embryos.
Section 6.9
Q23. Should conditional donation of sperm, eggs or embryos such as stipulating certain race or social
attributes be permitted? e.g. a sperm donor not wanting his sperm to be used for a single woman, a
lesbian couple, or a particular race.
I believe that the New South Wales model/legislation is the correct one. Here the donor retains quasi
ownership of the genetic material and can specify who IS and who IS NOT to receive his donation. I believe
that this should apply to all genetic material.
Q24. Do you think that the current ethical guidance is adequate?
•
Should information about the number and sex of half-siblings be available to donor-conceived
persons?
YES
•
Do you think that more information about half-siblings should be available to donor-conceived
persons? e.g. identifying information.
I am in favour of full disclosure of all information.
Q25. Do you consider 18 years of age too late to have access to this information?
•
Should earlier access to the information be possible?
Yes Full Information should be part of the formative structure of a child’s life. Many of my small children
know me as their “Donor Dad” and it is part of the condition of donating sperm that I am included in the
child’s life from birth.
Q26. What is best-practice to facilitate a first contact between the half siblings?
•.
Should this guidance be included in the ART guidelines?
Any contact between half siblings is by definition “Best practice”
Section 6.12
Q27. Should the donor be able to receive identifying information with the consent of the donorconceived person?
YES!!
Q28. Should donor and recipient information be completely confidential or do you think that this
information should be available to all individuals involved?
All information should be available only to all individuals involved.
Section 6.14
Q29. Is it reasonable for a sperm donor to be able to vary or withdraw their consent for donation at any
time before insemination or fertilisation? Is the point of treatment commencement or ovarian
stimulation a more reasonable point at which a sperm donor can vary or withdraw their consent for
donation? (see also Sections 7.3 & 9.6)
•
Should the right of gamete donors (or gamete providers for donated embryos) be restricted to the
time before a woman begins treatment in anticipation of using specific gametes or receiving specific
embryos?
I believe that it is a sperm donors right to change his mind about the use of his gametes at any time prior to
actual implantation/fertilisation.
Problems arise with embryos who are created for a couple if that couple later separates. Is the “ownership”
of the embryos several or jointly? Can one party prohibit the use of the embryos by the other party. If that
is the case is the relinquishing party liable for CSA (Child Support Agency) payments. Also is that child a
legitimate child of the relationship and entitled to participate in the inheritance of both parties since it was
created when the parties were joined but born when divorced?
Section 6.15 (see also Section 8.4)
Q30 Should restrictions on posthumous donation require written expressed direction from the donor or
should the requirements allow less explicit and/or implied expressions?
Because this is a Judeo Christian country with derived ethics the Bible laws on posthumous reproduction
should apply. These laws were extant but uncodified before the Mosaic covenant (Deuteronomy 25:5-10)
and appear in Genesis 38 where The penalty for not complying was immediate death by God personally.
I think that there is enough biblical legislation to adequately frame any regulations. Eg “All adequate and
immediate effort must be taken to create a life from a deceased person if that creation of life is desired by
a close relative”
Q31. Is it acceptable to take donations from dying or deceased persons?
•
If so, under what circumstances?
YES!! Where a close relative (spouse or parent) requests that action.
•
Should this rely on prior consent?
NO!! Unless the person has a living will expressly forbidding such action.
Q32. Do you think that Section 6.17 is still relevant to the clinical practice of ART?
I consider that the creation of “Hybrid” embryos for any purpose is an abomination.
QUESTIONS TO CONSIDER: (In addition to questions 11 – 17 & 22 – 23)
Section 7
My answers in this section as identical to my answers previously.
Q33. Have you encountered any difficulties in the interpretation and/or application of the current ethical
guidance in Section 7?
No.
Q34. Do you think that there are gaps in the current ethical guidance in Section 7?
Yes!!
There is:
A) No prohibition on the creation of “Designer embryos” for use by a third party.
B) There is no reimbursement for storage costs of holding the embryos. There should be no
reimbursement on cost of creation of the embryos as they should have been “Surplus” embryos.
But the relinquishing couple should be compensated for storage costs.
Section 7.2
Q35. Paragraph 7.2.1 – Is the practice of on-donation of donated embryos acceptable if all parties are
involved in the counselling process?
I do not believe that “pass-the –parcel” can be considered ethical when dealing with embryo/people.
However, the result of not using the “Popsicle person” is worse than using them.
Section 8
Q36. Have you encountered any difficulties in the interpretation and/or application of the current ethical
guidance in Section 8?
{I have serious difficulties with 8.4 storage of gametes of persons with reduced cognative function}.
If the person has consented to the creation of the gametes prior to the situation that they now finds
themself in I believe that the person’s wishes are clear and that they desired the gametes to be used as at
their last sentient expression.
Q37. Do you think that there are gaps in the current ethical guidance in Section 8?
Broad ethical statements in 8.3 preclude most discussion “It is not desirable to leave gametes in storage
indefinitely…” WHY?? This is a blatant effort to twist the discussion. This is not a gap but a chasism.
8.7.1 Is ethical buck passing! The creation of the embryo should have written clauses which override this
situation. Creation of the embryo should invest ownership with each person individually so that they can
store, use or donate the embryo as they see fit. Destruction of the embryo should be a decision of both
parties.
Section 8.3
Q38. Should limits apply to the duration of storage of gametes - recognising that if stored for fertility
preservation purposes, they may not be used for decades?
•
If yes, what do you think the maximum duration should be?
•
If no, what difficulties do you perceive and how should the storage of gametes be managed?
No limits. Provided that storage costs are covered.
Section 8.7
Q39. Paragraph 8.7.1 – In the case of stored embryos where the couple is in dispute, should embryos be
kept in storage until the dispute is resolved or should there be time-limited storage?
•
What do you think the maximum duration should be for time-limited storage?
No. Ownership of the embryos should reside with each party individually to use, store or donate but not to
destroy.
•
Should advance directives about the future of any excess ART embryos be obtained prior to the
embryo being formed, so that in the event of a dispute a process for either disposal or donation is known?
Yes. Advance directives should be obtained prior to creation of the embryos.
Section 9
Q40. Have you encountered any difficulties in the interpretation and/or application of the current ethical
guidance in Section 9?
No problems.
Q41. Do you think that there are gaps in the current ethical guidance in Section 9?
No Gaps.
Section 9.2
Q42. Among the information which should be discussed, should there be specific reference to the
significance of biological connection between donor-conceived persons and the donors of gametes, and
to the right of these donor-conceived persons to knowledge of their genetic parents and siblings? (see
also questions in relation to Section 5 and Paragraphs 6.1.1 and 6.1.2).
Yes.
Section 9.8
Q43. When a child or young person with stored gonadal tissue or gametes reaches adulthood, how
should the ongoing consent arrangements be managed? i.e. the transition from parental consent to the
consent of the individual.
At the age of adulthood. Even people with impared understanding are sentient and should be able to make
their own decision.
Section 9.9
Q44. Do you think that the guidance in Section 9.9 is appropriate?
Yes. However, it ignores the main issue of “Obtain consent” IF the person is unable to give consent THEN
their parents/spouse should give consent on their behalf.
Section 10
Q45. Have you encountered any difficulties in the interpretation and/or application of the current ethical
guidance in Section 10?
No the guidelines are clear. What is not clear is who is entitled to access records. I placed my details on the
NSW donor database for use by adult children searching for their donor. That database was pillaged by the
clinic [NHMRC has removed third party information] to ascertain if I had breached the state guidelines on
maximum number of children. Is the database a policing tool for use by any agency or is it to be used to
facilitate contact between donors and DCP? It can’t be both! I have never updated my record on the
database on most criteria including my address and number of descendants. I am practicing destruction by
neglect.
Q46. Do you think that there are gaps in the current ethical guidance in Section 10?
Yes the data base should expressly prohibit policing action or donors will eschew applying.
Section 11
Q47. Have you encountered any difficulties in the interpretation and/or application of the current ethical
guidance in Section 11?
No the guidelines are very straightforward.
Q48. Do you think that there are gaps in the current ethical guidance in Section 11?
No I do not believe that there are gaps?
Section 11.1
Q49. Are there any circumstances under which it is appropriate to allow sex selection for non-medical
purposes? e.g. for family balancing, to replace a lost child, for cultural purposes.
Many cultures have a predisposition for male children and that has led them prevent the conception,
implantation and birth of female children. This is particularly prevalent in people of Chinese or Indian
origin. These cultural practices are abhorrent to our Judeo Christian culture and their intrusion must be
prevented to prevent future distortions of the sex ration.
Q50. Do you think that it is ethically acceptable for ART to be available to individuals solely for nonmedical sex selection purposes, e.g. for family balancing, to replace a lost child, for cultural purposes,
when the individuals are neither infertile (physically or socially), nor have reduced fertility.
No I do NOT believe that it is part of our culture OR morally right for this practice to occur.
Q51. Is it possible to define a “serious genetic condition” for the purposes of allowing sex selection? If so,
please provide a suitable definition.
I do not believe that even serious syndromes like Prater-Willie’s or Noonan’s Syndromes is sufficient
justification for sex selection.
I do believe that it is the parent’s right to define what they see as a “serious genetic condition” and to act
according to their beliefs, ethics and family situation.
Section 12
Q52. Have you encountered any difficulties in the interpretation and/or application of the current ethical
guidance in Section 12?
YES the removal of one or more cells from a blastocyst is the process whereby identical twinning occurs. I
consider the one or more cells removed to constitute a separate living entity. Therefore the blastocyst
should NOT be treated with any less respect and dignity than the remaining cells in the embryo. I consider
it morally reprehensible to use one living human form to be the test laboratory to make determinations
about another living human form.
Q53. Do you think that there are gaps in the current ethical guidance in Section 12?
I believe that PGD is a field of research that violates too many ethical boundaries. The first set of
boundaries concern motivation for the PGD. The second set of ethical boundaries concern the procedure
and the creation of new individuals even if only of a single cell. The third set of ethical boundaries concerns
the creation, experimentation upon and then discarding of multiple embryos/people.
Section 12.1 – 12.2
Q54. Under what situations do you think the use of preimplantation genetic diagnosis is ethically
acceptable?
None, with the current level of technology.
Section 13
Q55. Have you encountered any difficulties in the interpretation and/or application of the current ethical
guidance in Section 13?
{Our society legally allows a woman to have control of her body for the purposes of abortion of a living
person and to rent out her reproductive areas for prostitution. It is a violation of a woman’s legally
recognised right to be an autocephalous sentient individual to prohibit her from using her body as she sees
fit. IF she is legally enabled to rent out her reproductive areas for sex for half an hour WHY is she prohibited
from doing likewise for gestating a person in her reproductive areas for 9 months?}
Q56. Do you think that there are gaps in the current ethical guidance in Section 13?
The ban on non-altruistic (commercial) surrogacy is morally reprehensible!
Section 13.2
Q57. In view of developments in other countries, should there be compensation, more than expenses, for
gestational mothers congruent with the reproductive effort contributed?
Yes I believe that there are some women who either A) enjoy being pregnant but do not want to raise the
child, B) have completed their families and see this as a wonderful job allowing them to multi task their
own family and to earn an income, C) have no employment opportunities other than surrogacy.
Q58. Paragraph 13.2.1 – Is this guidance still appropriate?
Paragraph 13.2.1 is a violation of the rights of a person to receive recompense in return for providing a
useful and necessary service to disadvantaged women.
Section 14
Q59. Have you encountered any difficulties in the interpretation and/or application of the current ethical
guidance in Section 14?
No Comment.
Q60. Do you think that there are gaps in the current ethical guidance in Section 14?
No comment.
ART CV for the submission.
1) I made my first submission to a Law Reform hearing on [NHMRC has removed personal
information]. It was to the NSW Law Reform Commission Inquiry into Human Artificial
Insemination. I have subsequently made submissions to the Senate Inquiry Feb 2011 into Assisted
Reproduction (Published Submission no 1
http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Legal_and_Constitutional_Af
fairs/Completed%20inquiries/2010-13/donorconception/submissions).
2) I had been a sperm donor at [NHMRC has removed personal information]. My donor code was
[NHMRC has removed personal information].
3) Prior to donating I had two live children and two miscarriages. Subsequent to donating I had two
more children in my marriage. I am also a blood/plasma/platelet donor with the RCBS (Red Cross
Blood Service) and my current donations are at [NHMRC has removed third party information]. I
started at blood donation age 18 which was the then legal limit. Now minor children can donate
blood at age 16. At that time I needed my spouse’s permission to donate sperm.
4) After the breakup of my marriage I approached the fertility clinic at [NHMRC has removed third
party information] to donate sperm again. I was informed that I was ineligible because I was too old
(52yo) and I potentially had too many children.
5) I decided therefore to circumvent the clinic system and donate via informal means. I considered the
legislation and regulations a violation of my human rights and deserving of contempt and
subversion.
6) I advertised my services in the [NHMRC has removed third party information] in late 2002.
7) Subsequently I also joined several international internet sperm donor groups. In these international
groups donors advertise themselves and wannabe mums advertise for donors. I joined about 6
groups, because if a thing is worth doing it is worth doing properly! (Colossians 3:23-24) & {Groups
such [NHMRC has removed third party information] PLUS many Facebook Sperm Donor sites such
as [NHMRC has removed third party information].
8) Currently, in addition to my 4 adult nuptial children in their low to late 30s, I have an unknown
number of IVF children also in their 30s. I probably grandchildren from them at concurrent ages to
my 2 known grandchildren. At concurrent ages to my grandchildren I have 16 small “Gift children”
[NHMRC has removed personal information]. All the known children are listed on my family
genealogy.
9) I am still A) Widely advertising my services [NHMRC has removed personal information], B)
Receiving requests from women I had previously contacted, C) Providing additional children to
women who already have a child of my loins, & D) Receiving referrals from friends of “Satisfied
customers”.
10) I donate via AI and not NI (sex). I have also commenced shipping chilled sperm in a buffer solution.
11) Many of the mothers of my “Gift children” are friends with each other and comment on their
children’s siblings from me. They also seek advice about the children from the other mothers. I
refer applicants to successful mothers to obtain a reference for me and details of the insemination
procedure. Recently I went to a McDonalds birthday party where my “Gift children” from two
lesbian families were present.
12) I registered my donor details with the NSW health commission. When I went to help a lesbian
couple with IVF through [NHMRC has removed third party information]they violated my privacy and
looked up my details and excluded me from helping this couple. If it ever happens again I will be
going to the HCCC (Health Care Complaints Commission and the Privacy Commissioner). This data
base was setup to allow DCP to track and contact their donors NOT to police donors into abiding by
draconian cruel government regulations.
[NHMRC has removed personal information]. I have, apart from asthma, no genetic problems. I
consider myself “Ubermensch”. Longevity, intelligence and good health are part of my genetics.
I do not discriminate greatly as to the eligibility of recipients. Sexual orientation, partnered status,
mother’s age and ethnicity are not factors upon which I discriminate. However, I do not donate to
wacko religious groups who exclude blood donations or vaccination or who suppress the rights of
women by practicing child marriage or FGM (Female Genital Mutilation). [NHMRC has removed
personal information]. I often write Letters to The Editor on ART issues in both the gay and straight
press.
I am available to appear to answer questions or to clarify my answers given above.
My contact details are:
[NHMRC has removed personal information]