I'm an adoptee, and as I get older, I find it more frustrating to have no medical history. (People usually just think of mothers when it comes to medical history, but paternal history is just as important.) Just about every month, some medical story talks about the importance of knowing your family medical history - this month, it was MRI's in addition to mammograms if you have a "family medical history" of breat cancer. I try not to be paranoid, but every time I hear a story like this, I think about my family medical history form, which says "UNKNOWN" in answer to every question.

I can understand the reluctance of sperm donors to come forward (especially since the law is murky in this area) but I think it's only fair to provide updated medical histories for the children involved.

There are other intangibles too - I've often wondered what my ethnic background was, or whether I got my nose or my premature grey hair from some relative - things people who aren't adopted take for granted - but it's the medical questions that concern me as I approach my 40's and 50's.

There is nothing stopping a requirement for donors to provide a comprehensive medical history, yet still remain anonymous.

Parents who give their children up for adoption are protected by laws preventing them for being responsible for those children in the future, but sperm and egg donors are not allowed such protections. Why is that? Giving up sperm or eggs to create a child that is then raised by a stranger is, for all ethical intents, exactly the same as adoption, yet it is treated differently by the law.

I too am amazed that there are even 208 donors in Britian. I certainally wouldn't be one (had I sperm to donate...) These men are put in a totally disadvantagous situation, in order to help a total stranger acheive their dream of giving birth to their own child.

Children from these arrangements should realise that they still have one biological parent who they know and grow up with, which is more than adopted children. They should also realise that having an 'absent' biological father, or having a step-father, is pretty normal these days. Why should they have the right to contact a stranger who was simply doing their mother a favour by donating his genetic material?

Neither sperm donors, nor egg donors, nor parents who give up their children up for adoption should have the right to remain anonymous. They should be guaranteed a complete severance of financial responsibility, but not to have their identities kept secret.

I disagree strongly with those who feel that people are guaranteed the right to know their genetic history. They are not, and no amount of knowledged is going to preclude certain medical considerations or give someone a family they feel they do not have. All this ruling does is create a disincentive for people to donate.

Why donate? The biological purpose of life is to reproduce. Being able to do so with no strings attached is a win-win from the biological perspective.

It won't be that long before you don't need to compromise the donors anonyminity. Just go in and get a swab, results will be back in a few weeks. Much more meaningful to know you own genes than to know your parents genes. Each of them can only tell you half the story, and its not always evident which half.

I have a big problem with changing the rules on people. Earlier donors agreed to donate with the understanding of anonyminity, it is unfair to change the rules on them. It would be fair to apply it to all new donations, but not retroactively. But it would be a bad idea, because it seems highly likely that self-genetic testing will be able to achieve better results by the time the offspring are of an age to want that info.

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.