Archive for the month: June 2013
The US Family Finder Test, which we use as a genetic database to search for half-siblings and donors, is available for $ 99 through July 26, 2013, 23:59 CST, which is 8:59 am on July 27, 2013 instead of regular $ 289 available. That’s only 76 euros. The test has never been so cheap. The prize includes a lifelong database usage right from Family Finder. In April, we already had a hit between a donor and a donor child. If you want to find out if you are related to us, order the test! –
The counseling network Kinderwunsch Deutschland (BKiD e.V.) has set guidelines for psychosocial counseling for germ cell donation (last version 03.03.2008). The association Spenderkinder also advocates psychosocial counseling for the desired parents as well as potential donors and welcomes the fact that advice-relevant contents are recorded in corresponding guidelines. However, we disagree on three points in the previous version of the guidelines:
1. In point 3.3 it is proposed to consciously choose a terminology that distinguishes between biological and social father, for example “donor” and “father” and redefining the process of procreation as the decision to donate sperm rather than as a biological act.
We see this as too intellectualizing, if not denying. Wish parents should clearly face the fact that the child is NOT born in the traditional way and is not a pure product of the mind or a dream of faith, but that it has a biological origin connecting it to a biological father. which is therefore part of the constellation forever.
2. Under point 4.3 it is stated: “Another topic in the consultation is the meaning of the donor for the child. Some parents fear that the child may feel attracted by the biological connection to the donor after an explanation and the father is considered less important and that this could, for example, in puberty lead to a rejection of the father. It is important to point out that the social father is the only real father figure for the child because the donor is not a present caregiver. “- In our view, this attitude tends to soften and diminish the possible meaning of the donor. Of course, what the dreaming parents fear can of course happen. Therefore, it is important for parents to consider how they want to deal with it and stand by their social family as well as respecting the child’s biological attachments.
3. Under point 5, the rights of the child are shown: As so often until 2006 is only a 10-year retention obligation and from 2006 a 30-year retention obligation. That is not correct. More on this page under retention and compensation claims.
Cancellation of anonymity = off for sperm donation in Germany?
In the judgment of the Higher Regional Court of Hamm on February 6, 2013, the reproductive physician Prof. Dr. med. Thomas Katzorke sentenced to reveal donor child member Sarah the identity of the sperm donor. As a reaction to the verdict, it was predicted, especially in the Internet forums, that nobody would donate without anonymity. Numerous comments have accused us of donor children to realize our search for our genetic roots at the expense of the interests of childless couples.
In fact, however, the opposite has happened: For example, both the laboratory manager of the Berliner Samenbank reported in a Tagesspiegel article and Prof. Katzorke von novum in Essen in the women’s magazine “Tina” on 15 May 2013 an increase in the willingness to donate in the months following the verdict , Also the Hamburg seed bank reports in a world article from 6 March 2013 and at Spiegel Online on 10 May 2013, that since the verdict at least not fewer donors come. Maybe the verdict was even more advertising for sperm donations.
This experience is also supported by the examples in other countries where donor anonymity was abolished several years ago, for example in Sweden (1985), the Netherlands (2004) and the United Kingdom (2005). There are still enough sperm donors in all these countries. In the United Kingdom, the number of donors has doubled since 2004, according to a report from the HFEA competent authority! In addition, the donors there for some years only an overhead lump sum of the equivalent of about 41 euros per donation paid. The change in the general conditions did not lead to a decline in the willingness to donate, but the composition of the donors changed. A study by Shukla et al. (2013) came to the conclusion that since 2005 more singles donate than before and that the partner or the partner of the donors was informed more frequently than before about the donation activity. In addition, more homosexuals donated than before and the main motive for the donation was “wanting to help”.
We are pleased that this development is also reported beyond our homepage and would like to refer to the article The End of Sperm Donation in Germany? of the online portal for German health news from 24.05.2013 as well as on the article Donor Affair: Ebb in the sperm bank? from the 13th of May 2013 in the DocCheckNews.
Incidentally, those who still believe that the verdict in February repealed the anonymity of donors in Germany are mistaken. As early as 1970, the Justiciary of the German Medical Association, Dr. med. Arnold Hess in the Deutsches Ärzteblatt “The doctor who has undergone the insemination can not conceal the identity of the donor if he does not want to be liable for damages or criminal liability for falsification of falsifications” 1. There can be no question of “annulment of anonymity” by the judgment. Rather, the full-bodied anonymity promises no later than 1970, no viable legal basis. Nevertheless, assuring anonymity was a bit daring. And who dares does not always win.
- Deutsches Ärzteblatt 1970, Issue 24, p. 1982 [↩]
Prof. Dr. Katzorke draws disappointing record
In the article from the WAZ from 26.05. relativizes Katzorke the verdict of the OLG Hamm and gives, as usual, to understand that he thinks nothing of the search for the donors.
As so often, it becomes clear that Katzorke likes to emphasize that it is mostly women who contact him. I find it an absolute impudence, based on this argument, to reduce the importance and therefore not take the issue seriously. Does he mean to say that if more men approached him, he would take his intentions more seriously? I am very annoyed by his discriminatory comments!
The author emphasizes clearly that the legal situation was not thought through. She calls it a “stairway joke” that there is a right to knowledge of descent at age 18, but the data could be destroyed after 10 years – which are the key to descent. In this way she gets to the heart of the problem and understands why we accuse the doctors of this annihilation. Even doctors could have pulled this conclusion earlier.
But Katzorke says clearly that he does not take it all seriously. His patients would not want to enlighten the child right from the start: “And a child who knows nothing does not complain.” Dear Mr. Katzorke, you are constantly shocking me and all the donor children again and again. How can you draw something positive from the lies of your parents in the same breath? It is the job of the doctor to inform the parents that it is not right to keep a secret about the birth of the child. To read such a thing – again and again – in the press makes me incredibly sad. I am sorry for the children who are being lied to and also the parents who can not be happy with this lie – but think it is right because the best known doctor in the field gives this recommendation. But the doctor has his peace and earns money.
The next section of the article is about the Competition of Internet portals, where you can refer private sperm donations. Katzorke has a customer loss of 50%. However, he sees advantages in his practice for childless couples because he selects the donor appropriately, so that it is ensured that the child is not noticeable. I’m missing the words slowly. Would not it be an argument that a practice offers advice and support? That the sperm is tested? That private sperm donors often only want sex and, above all, exploit lesbian couples and single women? Unfortunately, all these women are not treated in the clinics. In addition, they often feel the need to personally know the donor and to stay in touch. But instead of changing and adapting to the times, the doctors see themselves deprived of customers. And that of Prof. Dr. Katzorke, who, as it is emphasized again, has conceived a whole small town full of donor children – 30,000.
Related Posts
-
Archive for the month: March 2013 Prof. Katzorke expresses himself unveiling in the FAZ In the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung on 23.2.2013 an article by…
-
Archive for the month: April 2013 In the New Legal Weekly, probably the general legal journal, is a summary of the sperm donation judgment of the Higher…
-
Archive for the month: April 2014 Since last August, there is the initiative “network embryo donation”, behind which are mainly reproduction physicians…
-
Art lessons in elementary school, art class 5, school year 2013 – 136s website!
Class 5, 2013-2015 Class 5b, school year 2012/2013 Picture to Hannah Höchs oil painting plants collage The mechanical garden Material: black and white…