off-topic note: Some of these anti-women screeds are really bizarre especially the ramblings ones that don't seem to pertain to the topic being commented on.

Anyway, in reading the article (which was more commentary that information) it appears that this change in law is

1. Not retroactive

2. Confers no financial responsibility on the donors

3. Applies to both sperm and egg donation

I can totally understand why the numbers would drop if anonyminity was not guaranteed. I think people like the idea of being able to help out an infertile couple, but obviously aren't looking to be a part of that couple's life and the life of any child conceived. People who specifically want to be involved certainly have the option of open adoption/surrogacy/donation. I understand that most people want to know their medical histories, but couldn't that have been provided while keeping donor identity confidential?

And I would like to remind adopted children that non-adoptees may not know their parents or grandparents histories. Estrangement, lack of records and early death can cause large gaps in knowledge. My husband's paternal grandfather refused all medical assistance, in his entire adult life he saw a doctor once. He died in an accident many years ago. My father-in-law has been treated for some heart conditions, but we have no way of knowing if this is a hereditary condition or lifestyle based. Diagnoses made years ago may have been based on medical practices and understandings that have been changed. In the case of my paternal grandfather, he was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s before he died (15 years ago), when it fact it may have been more likely that he had depression induced dementia. Knowing your family's medical history is no silver bullet.

And for the off topic copy/pastes about men having to pay child support for children that aren't biologically theirs...I completely agree and am dumbfounded on how that can happen. I know that there are pre-DNA test laws still on the books that state that any child born to a married woman is legally the child of her spouse. My friend who has going through a divorce found this out the hard way when he found out that this soon-to-be ex was pregnant with her new boyfriend's child. His lawyer told him that he could be financially responsible for the child if it was born before their divorce was final!

Brightstar, calm down there. If you read the article and the companion piece on IVF "tourists." The British law appears to apply to both sperm and egg donors. No special protection for women. And I think a lot of people are making the assumption that sperm donation is only used by single women (or lesbian couples). However there are married couples in which the infertility is on the husband's side and sperm donation is a solution for them. I don't see why that would make you angry or how that gives the women in this situation special privileges. The companion piece actually explained how the rate of anonymous donation has decreased while the use of known donors has risen.

I do feel very badly for that girl in the article who felt like she was missing out on not having a biological father (she did have a step-dad for a while, but apparently didn't get along with him). She was very sincere about what she felt and her anger towards her mother. It turns out that she was very easily able to find her biological father and established a cordial relationship with him. However this may not be something that donors want and if they were promised anonyminity then they deserve that protection. It makes more sense to me to have a central clearing house where children and donors can register if they want to find or be found.

Personally, I would never use any sort of assisted fertility treatments other than insemination of my own husband's sperm (in the case of bad swimmers). I'm very wary at the unregulated nature of fertility clinics and I have no burning desire to have my own biologic children. And I would never go through the risk and cost of IVF. My husband feels just as strongly, especially if one of us was the infertile one, he didn't think it would be fair to have a child that was biologically related to only just one of us. We talked at length about this before we got married and agreed that adoption or fostering would be our choice if we couldn't have children.